Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., V.R. KRISHNA IYER, N.L. UNTWALIA, P.N. SHINGHAL AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
D. G. Gouse and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) Nos. 6298 of 1978; 1137-1138, 4861-4862, 6154-56 of 1979 and 6298 of 1978
Decided on 21-9-1979.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1524, 2091-2092, 2093-2103, 2136 of 1978; 6, 27-31, 50-52, 188, 266, 303, 309-311, 472-473 of 1979; 1543-1546, 1689-1693, 1556, 1981-2004, 2105, 2324, 2351 to 2354, 2415-2419, 2497, 2587 of 1978; 67-71, 129-131, 197, 265, 420, 544-545, 580 of 1979; 1965-1967, 2203-2206, 2583 of 1978; 1, 72, 168 of 1979; 2104, 2401, 2350, 1860-1864, 2256-2257 of 1978; 333, 500 of 1979; 2207 of 1978; 169, 148-150, 304-305, 409 of 1979; 2254, 2255 of 1978; 267, 542, 571 of 1979.
Writ Petn. Nos. 4375 of 1978 and 143 of 1979.
Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1979.
WITH
S. K. Subramanian etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and others, Respondents.
WITH
The Customs Clearing Agents Association, etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Alex Cheriyan and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and anothers, Respondents.
WITH
The South Corporation (P.) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
N. Kunhiraman etc. etc. Appellants
Versus
The Tahsildar and another, Respondents.
WITH
Abraham Abraham etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
K. G. Bhaskaran etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and others, Respondents.
WITH
Mrs. Lucy Eapen etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The Tahsildar and another, Respondents.
WITH
M. Bhaskar Kini etc., Appellants
Versus
The Tahsildar and others, Respondents.
WITH
A. K. Abraham etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Kollannur Devassy Jacob and others etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
T. I. Mathew, Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Darragh Smail and Co. (India) etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
K. J. Jacob and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
The Kanjuirappally Service, Co-operative Bank Ltd. etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
M. N. Kamalamma and etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
P. Sulochana Bai, Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and others, Respondents.
WITH
M. A. Cyril and others etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Vincent L. Ferns, Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Padmakashi etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
A. Gopalakrishnan etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Sabha Secretary Marthoma Syrian Church etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
K. J. Joseph etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
S. A. Nagendran etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
B. Ramachandran and others etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Muthathu Paily and Sons, Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Gokak Patel Vokart Ltd., Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
Mrs. Elizabeth Varghese etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The Tahsildar and another, Respondents.
WITH
V. J. Jacob etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The Tahsildar and others, Respondents.
WITH
K. O. Abraham etc., Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
N. Abdul Azeez and others etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
WITH
K. G. Sukumaran, Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar and others, Respondents.
WITH
M. N. Ramadas, Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar and another, Respondents.
WITH
R. Santha etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
AND
M. Mariam Beevi etc. etc., Petitioners Versus
The Tahsildar and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. Govindan Nair, Sr. advocate (1524), (2092-2095/78), 27, 29 & 303/79, 310 & 311/79); Mr. T. C. Raghavan, Sr. advocate (266) (M/s. T. L. Anantha Sivan and N. Sudhakaran, Advocates with them), for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 1524, 2091-2092, 2093-2103, 2136/78; 6, 27-31, 50-52, 188, 266, 303, 310, 311, 309, 472 and 473/79.
Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Advocate (1543-46 & 1556); Mr. S. B. Saharya, Mr. K. V. Kuriakose, Advocates in all excepting 1995, 1997, 1998, 29-31, 197, 500; Mr. V. B. Saharya, Advocate, for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 1543-46, 1556, 1689-99, 1981-2004, 2105, 2324, 2351-2352, 2354, 2415-2419, 2497, 2587/78, 67-71, 129-131, 197, 265, 420, 544-545 and 500/79.
Mr. P. A. Francis, Sr. Advocate (1966); Mr. K. Sudhakaran, Advocate (1967); Mr. P. Parameswaran, Advocate (1966-67); Mr. A. S. Nambiar, Advocate, for Appellants in 1965, 1966, 1967, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2206, 2353 & 2503/78; 1, 72 & 168/79 and 2063/78 and for Petitioner in W. P. 143/79.
Mr. P. Kesava Pillai, Advocate and Mr. S. K. Das Gupta, Advocate, for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 2104, 2350 & 2401/78.
Mr. P. Govindan Nair, Sr. Advocate (Mrs. Saroja Gopalakrishnan, Advocate with him), for Appellants in 1860-64/78.
M/s. S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri and EMS Anam, Advocates, for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 2256 & 2257/78; 333 and 500/79 and 2026/79.
Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Advocate, for Appellants in C.A. No. 2207/78 and Petitioner in W.P. No. 4375/79.
Mr. G. B. Pai, Sr. Advocate (169); Mr. K. J. Johan and Mr. Manzal Kumar, Advocates, for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 39 and 169/79.
Mr. P. Govindan Nair, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Baby Krishnan and Mr. N. Sudhakaran, Advocates, for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 148-50, 304-305 and 409-79 and for Petitioner in SLP Nos. 4062, 4061, 6298, 5141, 6154-6556/78.
Mr. A. T. M. Sampath and Mr. P. N. Ramalingam, Advocates, for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 2254 & 2255/78 and 267/79.
Mr. K. P. P. Pillai, Advocate, for Appellants in C.As. 542 and 571/79.
Mr. M. M. Abdul Khader, Sr. Advocate (for K.M.K. Nair, Advocate with him) for Respondents in all matters.
Mr. N. Sudhakaran, Advocate, for Petitioners in SLP Nos. 1137-1138/79.
Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 – Section 100(2) - Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 – Section 102(2),7(1)(3) and 5(1) - Corporation Act – Section 102(2) – Liable for tax - Tax on building - Legislature of Kerala State wanted to impose a tax on buildings, and passed Kerala Building Tax Act, 1961 - Its validity was challenged, and by his judgment, a learned single Judge of High Court held, it to be invalid and unconstitutional - This was so because Legislature had adopted merely floor area of building as the basis of tax irrespective of all other considerations - Intention to introduce a fresh Bill and to levy a non-recurring tax on building was stated in Finance Ministers budget speech - Bill was published sometime and it was stated there that Act would be brought into force with effect - Bill was introduced in Legislative Assembly and was referred to a Select Committee - Committee submitted its report - It recommended that Act may be brought into force - As the Bill could not be taken up during the budget session, Government of State promulgated Kerala Building Tax Ordinance, 1974 to give effect to the provisions of Bill as reported by the Select Committee - It was followed by another Ordinance on the lines of the earlier Ordinance - Whether general or local or special and it has been directed that tax shall be construed accordingly – Held, in the result, court find no merit in these cases and they are all dismissed without any order as to the costs - Court however think it proper, in circumstances in which all this controversy has arisen and uncertainty about true effect of the provisions of Act has been created, to direct that in cases where building tax has not been assessed so far the assessing authority may give assessee an opportunity to produce evidence on which they may want to rely in support of their returns. In cases where the assessments have been made, but the assessee could not or did not file their appeals within period specified therefore, court direct that they may be permitted to do so within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment and the appellate authority may admit those appeals as prosecution of these cases was sufficient cause for not presenting them earlier - It is clarified that if any matter is pending before Government of Kerala, it will be permissible for that Government to dispose it of according to the law - So also, in cases where the High Court has given an option or opportunity to any assessee to file fresh objections before authority concerned, under the provisions of the Act, it will be permissible for him to do so - Appeals and petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P. N. SINGHGHAL, J.:—These cases relate to the validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and are directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated June 12, 1978, by which the validity of those provisions has been upheld. We have heard these cases together and shall deal with them in this judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be convenient to make a brief mention of the background of the Act.
3. The Legislature of the Kerala State wanted to impose a tax on buildings, and passed the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1961, which came into force on March 2, 1961. Its validity was challenged, and by his judgment dated November 20, 1964, a learned single Judge of the High Court held, it to be invalid and unconstitutional. The Division Bench took the same view in its judgment dated July 7, 1966, and dismissed the appeal of the State. The matter came to this Court, and it also dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated August 13, 1968, reported in State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty Naha, (1969) 1 SCR 645. This was so because the Legislautre had adopted merely the floor area of the building as the basis of the tax irrespective of all other considerations. The intention to introduce a fresh Bill and to levy a non-recurring tax on building was stated in the Finance Ministers budget speech of 1970-71. A Bill was published some time in June, 1970, and it was stated there that the Act would be brought into force with effect from April 1, 1970. The Bill was introduced in Legislative Assembly on July 5, 1973, and was referred to a Select Committee. The Committee submitted its report on March 28, 1974. It recommended that the Act may be brought into force from April 1, 1973. As the Bill could not be taken up during the budget session, the Government of the State promulgated the Kerala Building Tax Ordinance, 1974, on July 27, 1974 to give effect to the provisions of the Bill as reported by the Select Committee. It was followed by another Ordinance dated November 18, 1974 on the lines of the earlier Ordinance. The Bill was passed soon after, and the Governor gave his assent to it on April 2, 1975. Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court to challenge its constitutional validity, and we have made a mention of the High Courts impugned judgment dated June 12, 1975, from which the present cases have arisen. While four Honbe Judges of the High Court have upheld the validity of the Act, a different view has been taken by Eradi J.
4. The question which arises for consideration at the threshold is that relating to the competence of the State Legislature to enact the law, on which considerable stress has been laid by Mr. P. A. Francis. He has argued that the subject-matter of the Act being a tax on building, it is a tax on the capital value of the assets of an individual or company and falls within the scope of entry 86 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and not under entry 49 of List II, so that it was beyond the legislative competence of State Legislature. The question is whether this is so.
5. The word "tax" in its widest sense includes all money raised by taxation. It therefore includes taxes levied by the Central and the State Legislatures, and also those known as "rates", or other charges, levied by local authorities under statutory powers. "Taxation" has therefore been defined in clause (28) of Article 366 of the Constitution to include "the imposition of any tax or impost, whether general or local or special", and it has been directed that tax shall be construed accordingly.
6. Chapter I of Part XI of the Constitution deals with the distribution of legislative powers. Article 246 of that chapter states, inter alia, the exclusive powers of the Parliament and the State Legislatures according as the matter is enumerated in List I or List II of the Seventh Schedule. Entry 86 of List I, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Fra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
