Judgment

MITTER, J.: By this petition the petitioners challenge the validity of (1) the Professions Tax Limitation (Amendment and Validation), Act, 1949, (2) S. 131 of the U. P. Zila Parishad Act, (3) an order of assessment of Rupees 2,000/- dated 25th March, 1968 made by the Kar Adhikari, Zila Parishad Muzaffarnagar and pray for incidental reliefs.

2. The petitioners carry on the business of manufacture and sale of "khandsari" and "gur" in the District of Muzaffarnagar. U. P. They own a crusher in village Morna in the said District where the manufacture of khandsari as sugar is carried on. They challenge the imposition of "Circumstances and Property" tax of Rupees 2,000/- imposed on their business under the order of assessment passed by respondent No. 2. Kar Adhikari. Zila Parishad Muzaffarnagar for the year 1967-68. As they did not produce their accounts for their business in Khandsari the Kar Adhikari, an officer appointed by the Zila Parishad of Muzaffarnagar assessed them to Rs. 2,000/- as "Circumstances and Property" tax on the estimated income of Rs. 96,000/- from their property and business for the year.

3. To appreciate how the Zila Parishad (a district authority) came to have the power to levy the tax, it is necessary to take an account of some past legislation. The Local body to administer the district of Muzaffarnagar in U. P. until the year 1958 was the District Board of Muzaffarnagar constituted under the U. P. District Boards Act, 1922 (U. P. Act X of 1922). Chapter VI of the Act containing sections 108 to 132 gave the Board certain powers of taxation, local rates etc. and prescribed the procedure for imposition and recovery of the levy. Under S. 114 the Board had the power to impose a tax on "circumstances and property" subject to certain conditions, inter alia, that the tax could be imposed only on persons residing or carrying on business in the rural area with an income above a certain minimum limit. The rate of tax was not to exceed Re. 0-0-4 in the rupee on the total income and the total amount of tax was not to exceed the maximum which might be prescribed by rule. By S. 115 a Board deciding to impose a tax had to frame proposals by special resolution, specifying the particular tax out of those prescribed in S. 108 which it desired to impose, the persons or classes of persons to be made liable and the description of the property or other taxable thing or circumstance in respect of which they were to be made liable, the amount of rate leviable from such persons or classes of persons and any other matter which the State Government required by rule to be specified. Section l16 enabled any person ordinarily residing or carrying on business in the district to raise objections to the proposal which had to be considered by the Board. Under Section 117 the Board had to submit the finally settled proposals to the State Government which could either sanction the same or return them to the Board for further consideration. When the State Government had sanctioned the proposals of the Board, it had to frame rules under Section 172 in respect of the tax as for the time being it considered necessary after taking into consideration the draft rules submitted by the Board. Following on the above, the Board was required to direct the imposition of the tax with effect from a date to be specified by special resolution. Under Section 120 (1) a copy of the resolution passed by the Board was to be submitted by it to the State Government. Government was required to notify in the official gazette the imposition of the tax from the appointed day upon receipt of the copy of the board s resolution and the imposition of a tax was in all cases to be subject to the condition that it had been so notified. Under sub-s. (3) of S. 120 a notification of the imposition at a tax under sub-s. (2) was to be conclusive proof that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) including in