LexBARSI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BARSI, DISTRICT SHOLAPUR versus LOKAMANYA MILLS, BARSI, LTD., BARSI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I A B c D E F G ff B1'.RSI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BARSI, DISTRICT SHOLAPUR v. LOKAMANY A MILLS, BARSI, LTD., BARS! AND ANOTHER (With Connected Appeal) September 19, 1972 399 [A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MuKHERJEA, JJ.] Bombay Municipal Borough Act, 1925, Section 75 Explanation. Bombc.y Municipal Boroughs Rules-Rule 2(c) Boroughs Municipali- ties (Validation of certain taxes on buildings and lands) Act, 1965, Sec- tions 8 and 4. A levy of tax cannot be validated by a validating act unless the charging section, ~arUer struck ,folrn, is revived or resurrected. The Supreme Court, in Lokmanya Mills, Barsi Lrd. v. Barsi Borough Municipalit,v (1962) 1 SCR 306 struck down Rule 2(c) as being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitutio,1> of India, for the vice of assumed uniformity of return per sq. ft. from structures of different classes which are in their nature not similar. The Maharashtra Legislature passed Borough Munici- palities (validation of certain faxes on buildings and lands) Act 1965, to validate the levy and collection of the tax with retrospective effect and to enable the mu.11icipalities to levy house tax on mills factories and buildings on the basis o'f Rule 2(c). Explanation to Sec. 75 of the Act was substi- tuted by the new explanation, by the Valida.ting Act. Ss. 4 and 5 are designed to validate the levy .. nc! collection of tax with retrospective effect. On challenge through a Writ Petition, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court struck dow,n Sections 3(b), 4(1), 4(2) and 5 of the Validating Act for tpeir contravention of Art. 14. The appeal filed by the State and the Barsi Municipal Council before this Courl, among other things, raised a question as to whether the Validating Act has resurrected the provisions of Rule 2(c) arid levy and collection were validated as required by law. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : When the rule was struck down by this Court, the effect was that the Rule could IDfver be deemed to have been passed. Apart from Rule 2(c), there was no charging provision similar to"Rule 2(c) either in the Boroughs Act or in the Validating Act for levying house t'ax on mills, factories and buildin!!S connected therewith. After Rule 2(c) was struck down, the Municipality did not frame any rule under the provisio:oo of Section 75 of the Boroughs Act for imposing tax on mills, factories or buildings connected therewith. Section 4 of the Validating Act does not revive or resurrect Rule 2(c). Since the charging section is :oot revived, there was no authority uncler law to collect tax on the said categories of properties. Since in the eye of law there was no charging provision, there could be no validation of any levy or collection. [403G] Held further, that the above holding was enough to grant all reliefs claimed by the respondent in the Wr'it Petition and there was no need to express an opinion on the validity of the impugned sections Of the Validating Act. [404F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1194, 1196, 1197 & 1250 of 1967. 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 2 S.C.R. Appeals by certificate from the judgment and order dated November 22, 23 and 24, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1476 and 1424 of 1966. G. L. Sanghi, C. K. Ratnaparkhi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel!ant (inc.A. No. 1194/67). B. N. Lokur, C. K. Ratnaparkhi, A. G. Ratnaparkhi and B. M. Srivastava, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 1196/67). M. C. Bhandare, B. D. Sharma, for the appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1197 and !250/67 and Respondent No. 2 (in C.As. Nos. 1194 and 1196/67). A B Sharad Manohar and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 1 C (in C. As. Nos. 1194 and 1197 of 1967). M. N. Phadke, Sharad Manohar and B. P. Maheslnvari, for respondent No. 1 (in C.As. Nos. 1196 & 1250/67). B. N. Lokur, G. L. Sanghi, C. K. Ratnaparkhi, A. G. Ratna- parkhi and B. M. Srivastava, for respondent No. 2 (in C.As. Nos. D 1197 & 1250/67). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. The respondents in these appeals filed writ peti- tions in the Bombay High Couvt challenging the validity of the Borough Municipalities (Validation of Certain Taxes on Build- ings and Lands) Act, 1965 (Maharashtra Act No. III of 1966), hereinafter called the "Validating Act", on the .ground that the provisions of the Act violated thdr fundamental rights under Art. 14 of the Constitution and for restraining the appellants
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.