SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 424

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
City Municipal Council, Mangalore and another, Appellants
Versus
Frederick Pais etc. Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1302 to 1036 of 1968 D/- 13-10-1969

Advocates:
For the Appellant :Vishal Kapur, Advocate
For the Respondents:Aditya Gupta, Advocate

Headnote:

Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964 - Section 101 (2) - Taxation - Assessment - Levy of property tax - First respondent therein was the owner of a number of buildings within Mangalore Municipality in South Canara District, which originally formed part of Madras State and which, on reorganisation of States, became part of State of Mysore. As per notification issued by State Government. Certain sections had already come into force. Till Mysore Act came into force, Mangalore Municipality was governed by Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Held, Provisions of Mysore Act, position is that a property tax must have been imposed by the Madras Act and even though the rates of such tax were higher than under Mysore Act, said higher tax could be collected. But no such tax having been imposed under Madras Act, second and third provisos to S.382 (1) do not apply and hence demands for payment of property tax for period are not justified - Though we are not in agreement with some of reasons given by High Court for issuing the writ, the conclusion arrived at by High Court that the second and third provisos to Section 382 (1) of Mysore Act do not justify issue of the demand notices for period in question is correct - Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- These five appeals, by special leave, by the City Municipal Council, Mangalore and the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, are directed against the order passed by the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 907, 1004, 1005, 1175 and 1245 of 1967, quashing the demand notices issued by the appellants against the first respondent in each of these appeals for payment of property tax for the half-year ending September 30, 1966. As the grounds of attack levelled against the demand notices by the said respondents are common, we will only refer to the averments contained in Writ Petition No. 907 of 1967 out of which Civil Appeal No. 1302 of 1968, arises.

2. The first respondent therein was the owner of a number of buildings situated in Ward II and Ward XX, within Mangalore Municipality in the South Canara District, which originally formed part of the Madras State and which, on reorganisation of the States, became part of the State of Mysore. The Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964 (Act XXII of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Act) came into force from April 1, 1965 as per the notification, dated September23, 1965, issued by the State Government. Certain sections had already come into force. Till the Mysore Act came into force, the Mangalore Municipality was governed by the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Act V of 1920) (hereinafter called the Madras Act). The Madras Act had provided for levy of property tax, the procedure to be adopted for the same and as to how the annual value of a building was to be arrived at as well as the percentage at which the property tax was to be levied. Similarly the Mysore Act had also provided for levy of property tax, prescribing the ascertainment of annual rateable value and also the rate at which the tax was to be levied. Although the Mysore Act came into force from April 1, 1965, the appellants issued demand notices for property tax under the said Act for the assessment year 1965-66. In those demand notices, the Municipal Council determined the rateable annual value under Sec. 101 (2) of the Mysore Act and assessed the tax on the basis of that annual rateable value, but at rates under the Madras Act. The tax was paid as per the demand notices. But on March 16, 1967 the appellant issued the impugned notices of demand under the Madras Act for payment of property tax for the year 1966-67. The tax demanded on the basis of the Madras Act was considerably higher than that originally demanded and paid under the Mysore Act for the assessment year 1965-66. Notwithstanding the protest made by the first respondent, the appellants threatened to collect the tax as per the demand notices and hence the first respondent filed writ petition No. 1907 of 1967 challenging the demand notices. The main grounds of attack against the demand notices, as raised in the said writ petition were that after the passing of the Mysore Act the appellants had no power to levy property tax under the Madras Act and therefore the demands were illegal. The demand notices were further attacked on the ground that S 382 of the Mysore Act, which related to the repeal of many Acts including the Madras Act and the saving provisions contained therein did not justify the issue of the demand notices. The first respondent accordingly prayed for quashing the demand notices issued under the Madras Act. He has also raised certain contentions regarding the levy of health cess included in the notices; but it is unnecessary to refer to those averments as the High Court has held against the first respondent and that question does not arise on these appeals.

3. The appellants pleaded that under the Mysore Act, Property tax, among other things, has been imposed after following the procedure prescribed in Sections 95 to 97 therein and the imposition of tax has come into force from April 1, 1967, but for the period in question viz., the year 1966-67 the demands were legal and valid in view of the provision

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top