Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Jethmal and 19 others against the State of Rajasthan, Village Panchayat Chandarun and Kanaram, Sarpanch of the Panchayat challenging the imposition of a tax on wood imposed by the Panchayat with the sanction of the Government.

2. The case of the applicants is that they received a notice from the Panchayat on the 2nd of September, 1957 in which they were told that a tax of 3 naye paise per maund had been imposed on all wood imported within the Panchayat circle with the sanction of the Government. Consequently, they were asked to pay the tax at that rate on all wood in stock with them. They were also told that they would have to pay the tax on any fresh wood received by them. The present application was made soon after this notice was received by the applicants. Their case is that the tax has not been legally imposed and they are not bound to pay it. They have also said that in any case it was not open to the Panchayat to tax the stock of wood with him on the 2nd of November, 1957.

3. The reasons put forward by the applicants in support of the invalidity of the tax are these—

(1) No previous sanction of Government as required by sec. 64 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, (Act No XXI of 1953) (hereinafter called the Act) was received by the Panchayat before it considered the imposition of the tax.

(2) No publication, as required by rule 24 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) was made of the tax desired to be imposed and of the tax actually imposed.

(3) No date was specified as required by rule 23 for the imposition of the tax.

4. The application has been opposed on behalf of the Panchayat and it has traversed the points on which the applicants claim that the tax is invalid. We shall take these points one by one.

5. The first point refers to the interpretation of the words previous sanction" appearing in sec. 64 of the Act. The relevant portion of sec. 64 is in these terms: —

"Subject to the prescribed rules and any orders made by the State Government in this behalf, a Panchayat may with the previous sanction of the State Government impose one or more of the following taxes namely:

(j) any other tax with the previous sanction of the State Government."

6. The facts which have been brought on the record on behalf of the Panchayat show that the Panchayat passed a resolution on the 8th of October, 1956, in which they said that they proposed to impose a tax on the import of wood within the Panchayat Circle for sale and that this would be realised from the seller of wood. Thereafter followed publication with which we shall deal later. Then the Panchayat took up the matter again on the 22nd of November, 1956 and after considering the objections, decided to impose the tax which they had proposed in the meeting of the 8th of October. This proposal was then submitted to Government and was approved by the Government by their order, dated the 11th of July, 1957 which was eventually communicated to the Panchayat in August, 1957.

7. Now the question arises whether in these circumstances, this tax has been imposed with the previous sanction of the Government. There is a well understood distinction in law between cases where a tax is imposed with the "sanction" of Government and cases where the tax has to be imposed with the "previous sanction". Where the imposition of the tax is with the "sanction" of Government, all that is required is that after the necessary procedure has been followed by the body imposing the tax, it sends the final proposal to Government for sanction. Where, however, "previous sanction" is required for the imposition of a tax, the matter has to be submitted to Government twice for sanction. In the first instance, the body, as soon as it wishes to impose a tax which requires "previous sanction", communicates its wishes to Government and must get the sanction of Government proceed to take steps for the imposition of the tax

Click Here to Read the rest of this document