Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Octroi/LBT Levy on Meal Vouchers — Vouchers Not Goods Under Municipal Law. Meal Vouchers Issued Under Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 Are Not Goods for Levy of Octroi or Local Body Tax Under Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 100
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court addressed two writ petitions filed by Sodexo SVC India Private Limited challenging the levy of octroi and Local Body Tax (LBT) on its meal vouchers by municipal corporations under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The petitioner company operates a business of providing preprinted Sodexo Meal Vouchers to corporate customers, who distribute them to employees. The employees use these vouchers at affiliated restaurants and stores, which are later reimbursed by the petitioner after deducting service charges. The petitioner also holds a certificate of authorization from the Reserve Bank of India under Section 7 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 to operate a payment system for such vouchers. The core legal issue was whether these meal vouchers constitute 'goods' for the purpose of octroi and LBT. The court analyzed the nature of the vouchers, noting that they are merely instruments representing a right to receive food or other items, and are not tangible movable property that can be subjected to octroi or LBT. The court held that the vouchers are not goods under the relevant municipal laws, and therefore, municipal corporations are not entitled to levy octroi or LBT on them. The petitions were allowed, and the respondents were restrained from levying such taxes on the meal vouchers.

Headnote

A) Municipal Law - Octroi and Local Body Tax - Levy on Meal Vouchers - Whether Sodexo Meal Vouchers are goods for octroi/LBT - The court considered whether preprinted meal vouchers issued by the petitioner company constitute 'goods' under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 for levy of octroi or Local Body Tax. The court held that such vouchers are not goods as they are merely instruments representing a right to receive food or items, and are not tangible movable property subject to octroi or LBT. (Paras 1-3)

B) Payment Systems - Authorization under Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 - Nature of Meal Vouchers - The petitioner company held a certificate of authorization from RBI under Section 7 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 to operate a payment system for meal and gift vouchers. The court noted that the vouchers are a payment mechanism and not goods. (Para 3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Sodexo Meal Vouchers are goods for the purposes of levy of Octroi and LBT, and whether a Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is entitled to levy Octroi or LBT on such vouchers.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petitions, holding that Sodexo Meal Vouchers are not goods for the purposes of octroi and Local Body Tax, and municipal corporations cannot levy such taxes on them.

Law Points

  • Meal vouchers are not goods for octroi or LBT purposes
  • Payment and Settlement Systems Act
  • 2007
  • Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
  • 1949
  • Octroi
  • Local Body Tax
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 108

Writ Petition No.5653 of 2010 with Writ Petition No.7503 of 2013

2015-03-20

A.S. Oka, A.S. Gadkari

V.V. Tulzapurkar, Prakash Shah, Prasad Paranjape, Arun Jain i/by PDS Legal for Petitioner; V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent No.1; Abhijit Kulkarni, Manoj Badgujar for Respondent Nos.2-4

Sodexo SVC India Private Limited

The State of Maharashtra and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging levy of octroi and Local Body Tax on meal vouchers.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought declaration that Sodexo Meal Vouchers are not goods and that municipal corporations cannot levy octroi or LBT on them.

Filing Reason

Municipal corporations sought to levy octroi and LBT on meal vouchers, which the petitioner contended are not goods.

Previous Decisions

Supreme Court directed priority hearing in Special Leave Petition Nos.3746 of 2014 and 3747 of 2014 on 19th September 2014.

Issues

Whether Sodexo Meal Vouchers are goods for the purposes of levy of Octroi and LBT? Whether a Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is entitled to levy Octroi or LBT on Sodexo Meal Vouchers?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that meal vouchers are not goods but instruments representing a right to receive food, and are authorized under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Respondents argued that the vouchers are tangible property and thus subject to octroi and LBT.

Ratio Decidendi

Meal vouchers are not goods as they are merely instruments representing a right to receive food or items, and are not tangible movable property subject to octroi or Local Body Tax under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

Judgment Excerpts

Whether the Sodexo Meal Vouchers are goods for the purposes of levy of Octroi and LBT ? The Petitioner Company has obtained certificate of authorization from the Reserve Bank of India under Section 7 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 to operate a payment system for issue of meal and gift vouchers.

Procedural History

The petitions were filed in 2010 and 2013. The Supreme Court directed priority hearing on 19th September 2014. The High Court heard submissions on 20th December 2014 and pronounced judgment on 20th March 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007: Section 7
  • Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Criminal Breach of Trust Case Due to Inordinate Delay and Incomplete Evidence. Trial Court's Closure of Prosecution Evidence Upheld as No Perversity Found Under Sections 406, 409 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging SARFAESI Proceedings Against Guarantors — Personal Guarantee Not a 'Right or Interest in Property' Under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Guarantors Cannot Challenge Possession Notice Before...