The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of a discriminatory tax violates constitutional provisions, leading to the Act's invalidation.

Headnote:
Kerala Buildings Tax Act - Validity - Act 19 of 1961 - S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5, S.6, S.8, S.10, S.11, S.12 - The court discussed the validity of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961, mainly on the grounds of the State Legislature's authority to pass such a law and its compliance with Art.14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, including definitions of 'building', 'floorage', and 'owner', exemptions, charging section, computation of floorage, return of completion of new buildings, assessment, appeal, reference to District Court, and powers of revision of the District Collector. The court found the Act to be discriminatory and violative of constitutional provisions, leading to its decision to strike down the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The writ applications raised a common question about the validity of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961, Act 19 of 1961, mainly on the grounds of the State Legislature's authority to pass such a law and its compliance with Art.14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the Act to be discriminatory and violative of constitutional provisions, leading to its decision to strike down the Act.
Issues: The issues raised included the validity of the Act based on the State Legislature's authority and its compliance with Art.14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution, as well as the discriminatory nature of the tax imposed by the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the discriminatory nature of the tax imposed by the Act, which was found to violate constitutional provisions.
Final Decision: The court struck down the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961, Act 19 of 1961, and allowed the writ applications.

Judgment :-

1. These writ applications raise a common question about the validity of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961, Act 19 of 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The validity of the Act has been questioned mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is argued that entry 49 of List II to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India pursuant to which it is claimed the Act has been passed, does not enable the State Legislature to pass such a law. Secondly it is urged that in any view of the matter, the Act is discriminatory and is violative of Art.14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.

2. Before examining these contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in the statute. The preamble of the Act states:

"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy of a tax on buildings;" and S.2, 'Definitions,' defines 'building', in sub-section (d) thereof as

"'Building' means a house, out-house, garage, or any other structure, or part thereof, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal, or other material, but does not include any portable shelter or any shed constructed principally of mud, bamboos, leaves, grass or thatch or a latrine which is not attached to the main structure'

"'Floorage' means the area included in the floor of a building, and, where a building has more than one floor, the aggregate area included in all the floors together;"

and ‘owner' under sub-section (f) of S.2 means

"'Owner' includes a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any building whether on his own account or on account of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who should so receive the rent or be entitled to receive it if the building or part thereof were let to a tenant;".

3. S.3 dealing with exemptions provides under sub-section (1)(ii) that:

"Buildings used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factories or workshops"

are exempted from the provisions of the statute. S.4 is the charging section and it is in these terms:

"4. Charge of buildings tax. (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged a tax (hereinafter referred to as 'buildings tax') at the rates specified in the Schedule, in respect of every building the construction of which is completed on or after the 2nd day of March 1961 and which has a floorage of one thousand square feat or more.

(2) The buildings tax shall be payable by the owner of the building.

Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section, the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed when it is ready, for occupation or has been actually occupied, whichever is earlier.

Explanation 2. A building, which is not liable to be taxed under the provisions of this Act on account of its having a floorage of less than one thousand square feet, shall become liable to be so taxed if the floorage of the building is subsequently increased to one thousand square feet or more as computed in the manner specified in S.5 by constructions or additions or combinations.

Explanation 3. Where the floorage of a building, which has already bean taxed, is subsequently increased by new extensions or additions or combinations, tax shall be computed on the total floorage of the building including that of the new extensions or additions or combinations, and credit shall be given to the tax already levied and collected in respect of the building before such extensions or additions or combinations."

4. S.5 deals with 'Computation of floorage of buildings'; S.6, with the 'return of completion of new buildings' and S.8 about the 'assessment' to be made. S.10 provides for 'appeal'; S.11 for 'reference to District Court', S.12 about 'Powers of revision of the District Collector' and the rest of the sections, I think, are unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the questions raised in this case.

5. On the first of the grounds referred to, two contentions have been raised. Firstly it is said that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1964 Supreme(Ker) 300

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of a discriminatory tax violates constitutional provisions, leading to the Act's invalidation.

Cases Referred (1)