LexANANT MILLS CO. LTD. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
220
ANANT MILLS CO. LTD.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
January 21, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C.J., P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, H. R. KHANNA AND
P. K. GOSWAMI, .TJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14-Treating pending coses as a class
.differem from decided cases, if a permissible classi[ic111iv11.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14-Duty of !he person challenging a provi-
sion of the Act as discrimi11atory-Constitutio11al validity, if cauld be 'decided
on the basis of supposed existence of certain facts by raising a presumption.
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (Bombay Act 59 of 1949)
as amended by Gujarat Acts No. 8 of 1968 a11d No. 5 of 19i0, S,•ctions 129
a11d 137-Conservancy tax for different categories of prop.mies-Tax, if should
be related only to the expense for conserrancy service
for
I/wt
paniwlar
.category.
Bombay Prori11cia/ Municipal Corporations Act (Bombay Act 59 of 1949)
as amended by Gujarat Act Nos. 8 of 1968 and No. 5 of 1970, proviso to
s;ectiot1 129(b)-Corporation to determine dif/er1!nt rates for different classes of
·properties-Prol'iso, if suffers from the vidie of excessii'e delegation of legisl111ive
power.
Bombay Provi11cial M1111icipal Corporations Act (Bom{HI)' Act 59 of 1949)
as amended by Gujarat Acts No. 8 of 1968 a11d No, 5 of 1970, Section 406(2)(e)
rule 42 of Taxation Rules-Appeal against a tax or mteable value-Deposit of
amount claimed condition precedent to e11tertaining appeal-Appellate j11dge
empowered to remol'e u11due hardship ro appe//a11t-Requireme!lt of deposit, if
11ul/ifies right of appea/-Prorfsion if makes im·idio11s disti11ctio11.
A
B
c
D
Constitution of India, 1950, Entry 49, List If, Schedule
V/l-"Land", if
E
includes 1111dergro1111d strata.
The assessment of properties to property tax in Ahmedabad was made under
the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act by making: entries in the
assessment books in accordan:·e with the procedure prescribed in the Taxation
Rules set out in Chapter VIII of Schedule A of :lhe Corporations Act, A st!pa-
rate section of the assessment book was prepared by the Commissioner of the
Corporation for each official year in respect of the assessment of property tax
F
on certain kinds of properties like textile mills,
factories
and bl!.ildings
of
University. These properties were classified as special properties. There was
some increase in the rateable value fixed by the Commi>sioner for the year
1964-65 and 1965-66. The Commissioner also made initial entries in a;sessment
book in respect of those properties for the year 1966-67. A numb·~r of writ
petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution were filed in this Court .:halJ.w(!ing
the validity of th(' asse·ssments for the yea:rs !964-65 and 1965-66 as \\'ell as
initial entries for the yca,r 1966-67. The Supreme Coun in the judgment N"w
fo.:fanek Spinnfni; & Wea1•i11p, Mills Co, Ltd. & Ors. v. /lfo//iciral CorporatiO!.' of
G
Ci1y of Al1111,-.J,1bud & Ors. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 69, allowed th·~ writ petitions a·nd
hdd the relevant entries in the ass·~ssment hooks to be invalid. Rules 7(2)
and ( 3) were also held to be invalid on account of exc·~ssive delegation
of powers hv the iegi·slature.
The 'taxation on the basis of floor area as
adopted by the Corporation was held to violah~ Art. 14 of the Constitufon.
When the Corporation initiated steps to make fresh assessment for the years
1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. it was unable to do so in view of the decision
of the High Court in the case of A !tmedabad Mu11icipa/ity v. K eslwrlal 6 G.I..R.
H
2'.!8 wherein it wa-i held that the Corporation had no power to a~sess and levy
property tax for uny otncial year after that year had ended. In order to get
over this difficulty. the legislature enacted Gujarat Act 8 of 1968. New Sec. 1::2A
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ANANT MILLS v. GUJARAT (Khanna, J.)
221
and new rules 7 and 2 !B were. inserted. When notices were served on the petition-
ers to furnish return of the particulars, the petitioners filed petitions in the High
Court challenging tho~ validity of those notices. Those petitions were ullowed
by the High Court as per judgment dated July 3, 1969 on the ground that
the ·.demand for certain particulars contained in the notices was beyond me
scope of r. 8(1). In the appeal filed by the Corporation against the judgment
dated 3rd July, 1969, the Supreme Court, in its judgment in Municipal Corpora·
1io11 of the City of Ahmedabad, etc. v. New, Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.