LexCHHAGAN LAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
871 CHHAGAN LAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE January 28, 1977 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. s. KAILASAM: JJ.] M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956-House Tax levied under the .Madhya Bliarat Municipalities Act, 1954-0n appeal corporation directed to decide the assessment afresh-Whether tax is payable from tile date of original assessment or after remand . . Under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, the Municipal Corpor- ation determined the house tax payable by the appellant in respect of his bouse A B with effect .from April 1, 1954. On appeal by the appellant regarding assess- C ment, the Additional District Judge remanded the case to the Corporation for a fresh decision after due enquiry. Ultimately, by a notice dated October 12, 1965 issued under s. 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (as amended in 1961) the Corporation revised the amount of (ax payable but maintained the date of liability for payment of tax as April 1, 1954. On appeal by the appellant, the additional District Judge held that the tax was pay- able with effect from April 1, 1965 and not April 1, 1954 for the reason that the tax was finally fixed after the notice dated October 12, 1965. The Revision Petition of the Corporation was allowed by the High Court holding that ta·x was D payable from April 1, 1954 because the proceedings were started even before the 1956-Act came into force. In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that (1) as the fresh notice was issued under s. 146 of the 1956-Act on October 12, 1965 after remand of the case by the District Judge, house tax could be imposed only with effect from April l, 1965 and not retrospectively and (2) the order of the District Judge being final under s. 149(1) of the 1956-Act the High Court had no juris- E diction to interfere with that order and in any event the High Court exceeded its power under s. 115, C.P.C. Dismissing the appeal. HELD : The proceeding relating to the house tax was a continuous proceed- ing relating to the tax payable from April l, 19 54 and the notice issued by the Corporation after remand by the District Judge did not amount to notice of fresh assessment or re-assessment. [87 4 E-F] F 1. There is no force in the contention that under the 1956-Act the munici- pality had no power to pursue the proceedings regarding the levy of tax for an earlier period. The notice issued by the Corporation to the appellant made it clear that the Commissioner was proceeding to fix the value in pursuance of the remand. The appellant's plea that the Commissioner was not authorised to determine the value and impose the tax for any period before the date of issue of the notice ignores the fact that the valuation and determination of tax from G 1954 was pending and the proceedings related to that period. Section 3(3) of the 1956-Act provides that all rates, taxes and sums of money due to the Municipalities when ·this Act was made applicable shall be deemed to be dne to the Corporation and sub-s. ( 4) states that all suits and other legal proceedings institued by or against a Municipality may be conuinued by or against the Cor- poration. The proceedings in, the instant case were originally taken under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954 and the proceedings regarding the levy of the house tax were not concluded when under the new Act the Corpora- tion became entitled to pursue the proceedings. [874 F-C, 875 A-DJ H 2. (a) Under s. 115, C.P.C. the High Court has power to revise the order passed by Courts subordinate to it. The District Court being subordinate to 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 s.c.R. A the High Court, is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. More- over, the question of want of jurisdiction of the High Court was not raised be- fore that Court a·nd cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court for the first B c D E F G H time. [87 5 F-GJ · (b) The principles governing interference by the High Court under s. 115, C.P.C. have been laid clown by this Court in a catena of decisions, the last of which is The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. S11resh Chandra Jaipuria & Anr. (A.LR. 1976 S.C. 2621). [875 H, 876 A-BJ Ba/derdas Shiv/al & Anr. v. Fi/111ista11 Distributors (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 435, M/s. D.L.F. Housing and Constmr:tion Co. (P) Ltd. v. Samp Singh and Ors. A.1.R. 1971 S.C. 2324, The Managing Director (MIG) Hi11d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.