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

2004 Supreme(UK) 211

2004(2) U.D., 401
High Court of Uttaranchal
Hon'ble P.C. Verma and Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, JJ.
Arun Kumar Ja'iswal………………..Petitioner
Vs.
Cantonment Board, Dehradun and another…………..Respondents
W.P. no. 1187 (M/B) of 2003 With W.P.ho. 91 M/B) of 2003
Decided on : 01-09-2004.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Cantonment Board to impose tax under section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, subject to the prior sanction of the Central Government and the adoption of taxes from the law 'for the time being in force' empowering the Municipality.

Headnote:

Octroi-Toll - Cantonment Board's Power to Impose Tax - Cantonment Act, 1924, Indian Tolls (Army and Air Force) Act, 1901, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - Section 60, Section 128 - The court discussed the powers of the Cantonment Board to impose tax under section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and its relation to the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. It highlighted the conditions for imposing tax and the role of the Central Government in granting sanction. The court emphasized the adoption of taxes from the law 'for the time being in force' empowering the Municipality and the pre-condition of Central Government's sanction for levying taxes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a writ to prohibit the respondents from imposing and collecting octroi-toll within the cantonment area of Dehradun and Chakrata. The respondents claimed authority to collect the tax under the Cantonment Act, 1924 and Indian Tolls (Army and Air Force) Act, 1901, citing the provision for prior sanction of the Central Government.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Cantonment Board had the power to impose the toll tax/octroi with the previous sanction of the Central Government, as per section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. It dismissed the writ petitions, stating that they were devoid of merit.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the Cantonment Board's imposition and collection of octroi-toll within the cantonment area, the authority granted by the Central Government, and the relevance of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the powers conferred under section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, the conditions for imposing tax, and the adoption of taxes from the law 'for the time being in force' empowering the Municipality.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were imposed.

Judgment

P.C. Verma, J.

1. Both the above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus/prohibition commanding/ prohibiting the respondents not to impose and collect the octroi-toll within the cantonment area of Dehradun and Chakrata (Dehradun) by their own staff or through contractor.

2. The petitioners are residents of Dehradun. According to them, respondent no. 1 is illegally collecting Octroi/toll from the vehicles coming within the cantonment area of Dehradun by exercising powers under section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 read with provisions of Indian Tolls (Army and Air Force) Act, 1901, according to which, the Cantonment Board may impose tax/octroi/toll if two conditions are fulfilled, namely, (i) there must be previous sanction of Central Government and (ii) tax to be imposed must be such which under any enactment for the time being in force may be imposed in any Municipality in the State within Cantonment is situated.

3. Cantonment Board, Dehradun is situated in District Dehradun within the State of Uttaranchal. State of Uttaranchal was created on 9-11-2000, under the provisions of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. Prior to that date, Dehradun was part of State of Uttar Pradesh. It is pleaded by the petitioner that prior to 1991 (wrongly described in the petition as 1994), all the Municipalities/ Municipal Corporations/Municipal Boards, within the State of U.P. used to collect octroi/toll tax by exercising the powers under section 128 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. However, the State of U.P. vide U.P. Urban Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 (wrongly described in the petition as 1994), abolished octroi/toll, etc. Thereafter, no octroi is being imposed and recovered by any of the Municipality. As such, no Municipality, Municipal Board, Municipal Council within the State of Uttaranchal is recovering any octroi-toll. Nor till day, State of Uttaranchal has authorized any Municipality to levy and recover the octroi/toll.

4. The respondents filed counter affidavit and submitted that they are authorized to collect the tax. Cantonment Board is empowered under section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 read with provisions of Indian Tolls (Army and Air Force) Act, 1901 to impose any tax in its area, which under any enactment 'for the time being in force' may be imposed in any municipality in the State, wherein such cantonment is situated. As per sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Cantonment Act, any tax imposed under this section shall take effect from the date of its notification in the Official gazette or where later date is specified from such later date. The only pre condition is to get prior sanction of the Central Government for imposing such tax. The octri and levy were imposed in 1956 vide two different notifications. The notification dated 1-11-1956 no. 369 imposing toll tax has been annexed for example. The Cantonment Board has already obtained the sanction of the Central Government. The respondents also averred that Cantonment Board, Dehradun provides civic amenities in the form of roads, drains, sanitation, water supply, etc., and toll tax is one of the important segments of the budget of Cantonment Board. If the same is taken away or stayed, not only the General function of the Board will be affected, but also the poorest section of the society will be hard hitted because the Cantonment funds one Intermediate College, two Junior High Schools, three Primary Schools, Hospital and Dispersing almost free for them. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Section 60 of the cantonmett Act, 1924 deals with general power of taxation. Section 60 (1) of the Act provides that the Board may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, impose in any cantonment any tax which under any enactment 'for the time being in force', may be imposed in any municipality in the State wherein such cantonment is situated. As per sub section (2) o








































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