JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—These are sixteen connected writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a number of reliefs in regard to the tax on money lending imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Sojat, on the petitioners. The petitions have been contested on behalf of the respondents.

2. Sec. 33(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, empowers the Panchayat Samiti to impose and levy in the prescribed manner a tax on such trades, callings, professions and industries as may be prescribed. The Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis Taxation R. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were framed prescribing the manner of imposition and levy of taxes. The schedule attached to these Rules prescribes the trades, callings, professions and industries on which tax may be imposed and also lays down the maximum rate per annum of such tax. The maximum tax leviable on money lenders is Rs. 200/- per annum.

3. On 19.9.61 the Panchayat Samiti passed a resolution under R. 31 of the Rules proposing to impose a tax on money lenders at the following rates :

(12) Income — Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5000/- Rs. 100/- P.A.

(13) Income — Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 150/- P.A.

(14) Income above Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 200/- P.A.

Objections against the above proposals were invited and were considered by the Panchayat Samiti at its meeting dated 18 11-61 and final resolution under R. 6 was passed on that date imposing a tax on money lenders at Rs. 2/- per cent of the annual income upto a maximum of Rs. 200/-. Money lenders having annual income of Rs. 1,000/- or less were exempted. Taxes for 3 years were demanded from the petitioners in 1965.

4. The validity of the imposition and levy of the taxes is challenged on behalf of the petitioners on a number of grounds.

5. The first ground is that the Panchayat Samiti did not decide the objections on merits and that a fresh proposal was put forward by the Collector at the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti dated 18.11.61 which was not published and the people affected thereby had no opportunity of filing any objection against it. On behalf of the respondents it is stated that the Collector did not put forward any fresh proposal.

6. What is mentioned in the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti dated 18.11.61 in this regard is that the Collector Pali put forward a suggestion about the imposition of taxes which was full of substance and that he explained at length why it was necessary to levy them. In the absence of an assertion by the petitioners that the Collector put forward some fresh proposal I am unable to hold that he did so. The resolution shows that the objections which had been filed against the imposition of taxes were placed before the Panchayat Samiti along with the comments of the Block Development Officer. They must have been duly considered by the Panchayat Samiti before it passed its final resolution imposing taxes. This ground has therefore no force.

7. The next ground is that the tax on money lenders amounts to a tax on income and as the Legislature did not expressly authorise the imposition of this tax on the basis of the annual income from money lending the imposition is invalid. This matter was considered in Firm Jalamchand Deepchand vs. Rajasthan State(l) and the imposition of this tax on moneylenders was held to be constitutionally valid.

8. The next contention is that R. 10 provides for the recovery of tax in two half yearly equal instalments and that taxes which have fallen in arrears cannot be recovered. R. 10 runs as follows :

"Due dates of Taxes—(1) The tax on rent and rental value as provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (2) of rule 3, shall become due on the dates on which the land revenue falls due.

(2) The tax on trades, callings, professions and industries shall be realised half-yearly in two equal instalments and shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December every year.

(3) The primary education cess shall be realised annually and shall fall due on 1st of December every year."

9. It o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document