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

1957 Supreme(All) 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Gurtu, J.
AZIMULLA - Appellant
Versus
SURAJ KUMAR SINGH - Respondents
Second Appeal 519 Of 1949
Decided On : 01/02/1957

Advocates Appeared:
AMBIKA PRASAD, K.L.MISHRA, V.P.MISRA

The imposition of a tax is a serious matter and requires strict compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Headnote:

MUNICIPALITIES ACT - TAXATION - ENHANCEMENT OF OCTROI DUTY - PROCEDURE - SPECIAL RESOLUTION - PUBLICATION - CONCLUSIVE PROOF - SECTION 131, 134, 135, 136, 164, 94 - U. P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1916.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs challenged the imposition of enhanced octroi duty on heads of cattle by the Municipal Board, alleging that it was illegal and wrongly collected. They sought an injunction restraining the Board from realizing the enhanced duty and a decree for refund of the amount wrongly collected.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Board had the power to enhance the octroi duty. 2. There was a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 131(3) read with Section 94 of the Act, and a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Act. 3. The notification of imposition of the tax under Section 135(2) was not conclusive proof that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. The enhancement of the octroi duty was effected without the passing of a special resolution imposing the enhanced octroi duty, and therefore, there was no right in the Municipal Board to collect the octroi duty at the enhanced rate.

Issues: 1. Whether the Board had the power to enhance the octroi duty. 2. Whether there was a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 131(3) read with Section 94 of the Act, and a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Act. 3. Whether the notification of imposition of the tax under Section 135(2) was conclusive proof that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. Whether the enhancement of the octroi duty was effected without the passing of a special resolution imposing the enhanced octroi duty.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The imposition of a tax is a serious matter and requires strict compliance with the prescribed procedure. 2. The provisions of Section 131(3) read with Section 94 of the Act, and the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Act are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. 3. The notification of imposition of a tax under Section 135(2) is conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act only if the prescribed procedure has been followed. 4. The enhancement of the octroi duty without the passing of a special resolution imposing the enhanced octroi duty was illegal.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. A declaration was issued that the imposition of enhanced duty on heads of cattle by the Municipal Board was illegal. An injunction was issued against the Municipal Board restraining them from realizing the enhanced octroi duty. A decree was granted to the plaintiffs for a total amount of Rs. 10,010-6-0 with costs in all Courts.

GURTU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal against the Municipal Board of Azamgarh.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs came to Court on the allegation that the imposition of enhanced octroi duty on heads of cattle by the Municipal Board was illegal and that the same had been wrongly collected from them. The plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the Board from realising the enhanced octroi duty and asked for a decree for refund of the amount wrongly collected from them.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs case was that the enhancement of the octroi duty amounted to imposition of a tax by the Board, but that the enhancement had not been effected in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Municipalities Act of 1916 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and that, therefore, they were not liable to pay the octroi duty at the enhanced rate. Principally, the contention of the plaintiffs was that there had been no proper publication of the proposal to enhance the octroi duty in accordance with the provisions of Section 131 of the Act read with section 94 thereof. It was also the plaintiffs case that there was a failure on the part of the Board to pass a special resolution directing imposition of the tax under Section 134 (2) of the Act and that, therefore, the notification relating to imposition of the tax made Under the provisions of Section 135 of the Act in the official Gazette was illegal. For these reasons, it was the plaintiffs case that there was no liability on the plaintiffs to be assessed for the payment of the enhanced octroi duty in respect of their cattle.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the Board, a defence was entered and it was pleaded that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court because it was barred under the provisions of Section 164 of the act. It was also pleaded that there had been compliance with the provisions of the Act so far as they related to the enhancement of the octroi duty. It was further pleaded that the notification issued under Section 135 (3) of the Act imposing the tax was conclusive proof of the fact that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the case of the defendant Board was that there was no ground upon which the plaintiffs could obtain the injunction prayed for and the refund sought.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsif, who tried the suit, came to the conclusion that it was within the power of the Board to enhance the octroi duty, that the prescribed formalities had been carried out and that the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court. He held that Section 164 of the Act was attracted and it barred the plaintiffs suit. In this view of the matter, the learned Munsif dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

( 6 ) THERE was an appeal by the plaintiffs. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that the failure to publish the proposal for enhancement of octroi duty in a local newspaper had been explained and that although the proposal was not published in a local newspaper, yet the same had been brought to the notice of the public by fixing notices at conspicuous places. The learned Civil judge, therefore, was of the view that there was no failure to comply with the provisions of section 131 (3) read with Section 94 of the Act. The learned Judge further held that though there had been an omission to pass a special resolution under Section 134 after the approval by the commissioner, that did not make the issue of notification imposing the tax under Section 135 (2)illegal. In view of Clause (3) of the said section, the learned Judge was of opinion that the publication of the notification imposing the tax was conclusive proof that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He was also of the view that since the imposition of the octroi duty was not a new tax, but only enhancement of an existing tax, the failure to publish the special resolution did not, in fact, matter. The learned Judge of the Court below also was of the view that the Board had the authority to al
































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