SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(J&K) 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
K.K. Gupta,R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Jammu Cantonment Residents Association - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 235/1988
Decided On : 06 November, 1989

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: J. Singh
Advocate For Respondent: N.P. Kotwal

The Cantonment Board had the authority to impose taxes in the State of Jammu and Kashmir under Entry 3 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution, as applied to the State, and that the tax imposed was in compliance with the provisions of the Cantonment Act.

Headnote:

CANTONMENT ACT - TAXATION - SECTIONS 60, 61, 62, 91 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 114 - CONSTITUTION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, SECTION 114 - CONSTITUTION APPLICATION ORDER OF 1954 - ENTRY 3, SCHEDULE VII, LIST I - VALIDITY OF TAX IMPOSED BY CANTONMENT BOARD - INTERPRETATION OF ADMINISTRATION OF CANTONMENTS - AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE TAXES - COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, residents of the Cantonment Area of Jammu, challenged the notification and order imposing building tax by the Cantonment Board, alleging it was without jurisdiction and violated the provisions of the Cantonment Act and the Constitution of India. They argued that taxation could only be imposed by the authority of law and that the Cantonment Board had no power to impose taxes in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Cantonment Act had been validly extended to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and that Entry 3 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution, as applied to the State, empowered the Cantonment to impose taxes strictly according to the procedure established under and for the purposes of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Cantonment Board had the authority to impose taxes in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 2. Whether the tax imposed was in compliance with the provisions of the Cantonment Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "administration of Cantonments" in Entry 3 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution to include the power to impose taxes for the purposes of administration. 2. The court found that the tax imposed was in compliance with the provisions of Sections 60, 61, and 62 of the Cantonment Act, as evidenced by the tax notification issued by the Cantonment Board.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the tax imposed was valid and according to law.

SETHI J

1. Notification and order imposing building tax by the respondent No. 2 has been challenged and is sought to be quashed being without jurisdiction and in contravention with the provisions of Sec. 60 to 63 and 91 of the Cantonment Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and the provisions of the Constitution of India as made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is submitted by the residents of the Cantonment Area of Jammu that no tax can be levied or collected except by the authority of law as ordained by Sec. 114 of the Constitution of J&K. It is submitted that within the territory of J&K State the only taxation that can be imposed are under the legislation as adopted by the Legislative Assembly of the State.By virtue of Act 370 of the Constitution only those enactments are applicable to the State of J&K which have been made so applicable by virtue of Constitution application Order of 1954. It is submitted that entry No. 3 Schedule VII of List I of the Constitution of India is not applicable in the same form in the State of J&K as it is applied in the rest of the Country. The powers of the Cantonments within the State of J&K are limited only to their administration and not taxation. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 without compliance of provisions of Sec. 60, 61 and 62 of the Act and without notifying the proposed imposition of tax has arbitrarily issued one notice to the petitioners and all other persons residing in the Cantonment Area for payment of taxes of buildings for a period of more than two years. It is submitted that the notification imposing the tax was issued by the respondents without previous sanction of the Central Government which renders it liable to be quashed It is further alleged that no notice under section 55 of the Act was published specifying the tax which was proposed to be imposed and the persons or class of persons who were to be made liable were not afforded an opportunity to file objections. Demand notices have been issued to the petitioners and other owners of the buildings in the Cantonment Areas without the authority of law which are required to be quashed.

2In the objections filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was not registered association and disentitled to file the present writ petition for the enforcement of alleged fundamental rights. It is further submitted that no legal or fundamental right has been violated. The Cantonment Act 1924 was validly extended to the Stale of J&K by virtue of the Constitution Application Order to J&K in 1954. The pre-amble of the Act refers to the administration of the Cantonments which is a union subject and the legislative powers only are vasted with Union of India by virtue of the Constitution. The tax impugned is claimed to have bean imposed after compliance of the provisions of Sections 60, 61, and 62 of the Act. Tax notification was issued under SRO 61 dated 17-3-1959. Such a power is also conferred upon the Municipalities under section 77 of the Municipal Act. Notice under Section 255 of the Act was published specifying the tax which was proposed to be amended and the persons who were liable to pay the same after affording them an opportunity of filing the objections. It was only when the Central Government was satisfied about the compliance of provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of the Act that it gave its assent to the proposed tax. The tax imposed is legal, valid and according to law.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

4.The Act was extended to the State of J&K by omitting the words, "except the State of J8K" vides Central Act 53 of 1950. The preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the administration of Cantonments in the country Under Part XV Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India, the Union Legislature has the power to enact the laws with respect to specified entries in Lists I,







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top