AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE versus LOCAL BOARD OF BARPETA

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 11-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
' 
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE 
v 
LOCAL BOARD OF BARPETA 
February, 11, 1965 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. C. SlrAH AND S. M. SIKRI JJ ] 
Assam Local Self Governmemt Act 1953, (Act 25 of 1953), s. 62-
Tax-Whether on land used for market or on market-State leail-
lature, competence-Constitution of India Seventh Schedule, List II 
Entry 
49-Interpretation-Discrimination-Allegations-Burden 
of 
prJOJ. 
The appellant as a lund-holder held a hat or market on his land. 
The respondent, the local board, within whose jurisdiction the 
market was held, issued notice to the appel!lant to take out 'I licence 
and pay a certain suni as licence fee for holding the market. Inspite 
of the continued protests of the appellant against the levy, 
the amount was sought to be recovered by the issue of distres! 
warrants and attachment of his property. The appellant filed a writ 
petition in the High Court challenging on a number of grounds, the 
constitutionality of the impost, which was dismissed. In appeal by 
certificate the appellant contended that (i) the Assam Legislature 
had no legislative competence to tax markets, and (ii) the tax actually 
imposed on this market infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution, because 
the Loard fixed a higher rate for the appellant's market as compared 
with other neighbouring markets. 
· 
HELD: (i) The tax in the present case being on land within the 
meaning of Entry 49 .of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Cons-
titution, would clearly be within the competence of the State Legis-
lature. r 49 E-Cl 
The Scheme of s. 62 of the Assam Local Self Government Act, 
1953 shows that the tax provided therein is a tax on land, though its 
incidence depends upon the use of the land as a market and the 
owner, occupier or farmer of that land has to pay a certain tax for 
its use as such. But there is no tax on the transaction that may take 
plar~ within the market. Further the amount of tax depends upon 
the area of the land on which the market is held and the importance 
of the market subject to a maximum fixed by the State Government. 
Sectic n 62(2) which used the words "impose an annual tax thereon" 
clearly shows that the word "thereon" refers to any land for which 
a licence is issued for use as a market and not to the word "market". 
The use to which the land is put can be taken into .account in impos-
ing a tax on it within the meaning of entry 49 of thtl'·List II. Ral!a Ram 
v. The Province of East Punjab, P9481 F.C.R. 207, applied. [51 C-F] 
(ii) It was for the appellant to show that in fixing the tax 0.11. 
the other markets as it did, the board acted arbitrarily and did not 
take into account 'the size and importance of the markets. As there 
was no material by which the relative size and imoortance of those 
markets, could be judged. it was not possible to hold that there was 
discrimination in taxing this market. r52 F-Gl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDfCTION: Civil Appeal No. 630 of 
1963. 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
(1965) 3 S.C.R. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated June 8, 1959 of A 
the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No. 42 of 1957. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
Naunit Lal, for the respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Assam 
B 
High Court raises the question of the constitutionality of an annual 
tax levied by local boards for the use of any land for 
the purpose of holding markets as provided by s. 62 of the Assam 
Local Self-Government Act, No. XXV cf 1953, (hereinafter cefer-
red to as the Act). Th~ ap.pellant is a landholder in the district of 
Kamrup. As such landholder, he holds a hat or market on his 
C 
land since the year 1936 and this market is known as Kharma hat. 
Jn 1953-54, the local board· of Barpeta, within whose jurisdiction 
the Kharma market is held, issued notice to the appellant to take 
out a licence and pay Rs. 600/- for the year 1953-54 as licence-fee 
for holding the market. Later this sum was increased to Rs. 700 f -
for the year 1955-56. The appellant continued ;>rotesting against 
D· 
this levy but no heed was paid to his protests and the amount was 
sought to be recovered by issue of distress warrants and attachment 
of his property. Consequently, the appellant filed a writ petition in 
the High Court challenging the constitutionality of the impost on a 
number of grounds. In the present appeal two main con-
J!! 
tentions

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.