High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Wanchoo,Modi
SOMATH MAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Misc. Writappln. 357 Of 1952
Decided On : 05/11/1953
TAXATION - Levy of Taxes - Authority of Law - Council Resolutions of Former State of Jodhpur - Whether Law - Publication of Laws - Necessity - Municipal Taxes - Boundary Limits of Municipality - Definition - Necessity - Alternative Remedy - Existence of - Effect on Issuance of Prohibition Order.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, residents of Bhinmal, challenged the legality of taxes levied by the Municipal Board of Bhinmal, claiming they were unauthorized and illegal. The Board relied on Council Resolutions of the former State of Jodhpur as authority for the taxes. The petitioners also contended that the boundary limits of the Bhinmal Municipality had not been defined.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Council Resolutions of 1932 and 1948 of the former State of Jodhpur were not law or had the force of law as required by Article 265 of the Constitution. 2. The Resolution of 1948 was an executive act and not a legislative one. 3. The levy of taxes without the sanction of law was illegal. 4. The boundary limits of the Bhinmal Municipality were not fixed by the former State of Jodhpur and were therefore not certain and not known. 5. The levy of the Kharda lag by the Municipal Board of Bhinmal was not covered by any authority. 6. The levy of the other taxes in question was not sanctioned or supported by any law within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Council Resolutions of the former State of Jodhpur were law or had the force of law as required by Article 265 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Resolution of 1948 was a legislative act or an executive act. 3. Whether the levy of taxes without the sanction of law was illegal. 4. Whether the boundary limits of the Bhinmal Municipality were fixed by the former State of Jodhpur. 5. Whether the levy of the Kharda lag by the Municipal Board of Bhinmal was covered by any authority. 6. Whether the levy of the other taxes in question was sanctioned or supported by any law within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Council Resolutions of 1932 and 1948 were not law or had the force of law as required by Article 265 of the Constitution because: - They were not published in the official gazette, which was the normal method of publication of laws in the former State of Jodhpur. - The Resolution of 1948 was an executive act and not a legislative one because it was passed after the machinery for making laws under the Government of Jodhpur Act, 1947, had become extinct. 2. The levy of taxes without the sanction of law was illegal because Article 265 of the Constitution requires that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. 3. The boundary limits of the Bhinmal Municipality were not fixed by the former State of Jodhpur and were therefore not certain and not known because the Municipality had no authority to delimit its own boundaries and the State Government had not done so. 4. The levy of the Kharda lag by the Municipal Board of Bhinmal was not covered by any authority because there was no legal sanction for its recovery. 5. The levy of the other taxes in question was not sanctioned or supported by any law within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution because the Council Resolution of 1948 was not law.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the Municipal Board of Bhinmal was directed to cease levying and collecting the impugned taxes. The prayer of the petitioners for the refund of the taxes already collected was rejected.
MODI, J.
( 1 ) THESE are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, and arise out of the same facts.
( 2 ) THE petitioners are residents of Bhinmal and. describe themselves as citizens, voters and taxpayers in that town. The case of the petitioners is that opposite parties Nos. 2 to 9, who are members of the Municipal Board of Bhinmal and who will hereinafter be referred to as the Board, have been realising from the petitioners and others certain taxes which are mentioned in the schedule appended to their petition and which may briefly be described as (1) octroi on certain articles e. g. , cloth, grain, ghee, sugar and some others, if and when brought into the town of Bhinmal, and (2) a Kharda lag which is a sort of house-tax, without any authority of law, and that such action on the part of the Board is unauthorised and illegal. The petitioners further alleged that the boundary limits of the Bhinmal Municipality had not been denned under any law at all. The petitioners therefore prayed that the opposite parties be restrained by the issue of a writ of prohibition or mandamus or any other writ or order from levying and collecting the taxes in question and that the money already collected from the petitioners in lieu thereof be directed to be refunded. It is stated on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, and the Municipal Board of Bhinmal that a Municipality was established in the town of Bhinmal by His Highness the Maharaja of the former State of Jodhpur under Council Resolution No. 5 dated 3-11-32, and that a terminal tax on all goods and parcels booked to Bhinmal by rail at the rate of 6 pies per maund was levied by that order. (Annexure 1 ). Later, by Council resolution No. 14 dated 22-11-48, His Highness the Maharaja ordered that the proposal of levying octroi on goods imported into the Municipal limits of Bhinmal be sanctioned with effect from 1-12-1948, according to the proposed schedule (Annexure 4 ). So far as the Kharda lag was concerned, learned Assistant government Advocate frankly conceded that he was unable to point to any authority under which this tax was being realised. It is claimed, however, that the levy of octroi, which is now being questioned by the petitioners, was being made tnder due authority of law. It was further stated that the boundary limits of the bhinmal Municipality had been defined by the Municipality under its resolution dated 7-12-48. Certain additional pleas were also put forward on behalf of the opposite parties, viz. , (1) that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit which was equally convenient and effective, (2) chat they had never made any demand for justice, and (3) that the present applications had been made after great delay and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to apply for a writ of any kind and thereby invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.
( 3 ) THE first and the most important question for determination before us is whether, leaving aside the Kharda lag for the recovery of which there is admittedly no legal sanction, there exists any legal foundation for the recovery of the impugned taxes inasmuch as Article 265 of the Constitution lays down that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the Council Resolutions of 1932 and 1948 of the former State of Jodhpur are law, or, at any rate, have the force of law. We may point out at the very outset that authenticated copies of the Council resolutions under reference have not been brought on the record, and, therefore, we have not had the opportunity of seeing them ourselves as we should have wished to do. In the case of Council Resolution of 1932, what we have before us is a copy of letter No. 3944 dated 16-1-33 from the Judicial Member, State Council, jodhpur to the Hakim, Jaswantpura, in which it is stated that His Highness the maharaja of Jo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.