CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANGALORE & ANR. versus FREDERICK PAIS ETC.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 13-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
751 
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANGALORE & ANR. · 
v. 
FREDERICK PAIS ETC. 
October 13, 1969 
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AKO I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
Mysore Municipalities Act (Mys. Act 22 of 1964), s. 382(1)-Assess-
ment registers prepared under Madras District Municipalities Act 
(5 of 
1920)--Registers to have currency for 5 years-Mysore Act coining into 
force meanwhile-Property tax ilnposed under 1\1/adras Act t1'1ereafter-
Validity-lf saved under s. 382(1) and prorisos of Mysore Act a:i· amend-
ed by Mysore Act 34 of 1966. 
The first respondent was the owner o'f some buildings within 
the 
appellant-Municipality. The appellant was governed by the Madras Dis-
trict Municipalities Act, 1920, till April 1, 1965, when the. Mysore Muni-
cipalities Act, 1964 came into force and thereafter by the Mysore Act. 
For the year 1966-67 the appellant issued notices df demand for payment 
of property tax under the Madras Act. The tax was higher than under 
the Mysore Act. The first respondent challenged the levy by a writ petition, 
and the appellant justified the levy under s. 382(1) of the Mysore Act and 
its provisos. 
The High Court quashed the demand notices. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Under the second and third provisos to s. 382( 1) of the 
Mysore Act if a property tax has been imposed by the Madras Act, even 
though the rate of such tax is higher than that under the Mysore Act, the 
higher tax could be collected. The provisions of Madras Act namely ss. 
78, 81, 82, 124 and r. 8 of Schedule IV rlf the Act, show that the munici-
pal tax is an annual tax leviable 
fo·r a particular official year and the 
assessment list on the basis of which the tax is assessed is for such official 
year. Though, ordinarily, the Municipality 
would have 
to prepare a 
fresh assessment list every year, r. 8 of Schedule IV of the Madras Act-
which, by virtue of s. 124 has to be read as part of Chapter VI of the 
Act dealing with Taxation and Finance-permits the Municipal Council to 
continue the same assessment list for the next 4 succeeding years and to 
r~vise it once. every 5 years. But, in order to enable the Municipal Coun-
cil to levy and collect a lax, under s. 78 it has to pass a resolution deter-
mining to levy a tax, the rate at which such tax has to be levied as also 
the date from which it shall be levied. In the present case. no such reso-
lution was passed by the Municipal Council. Therefore, by merely pre-
paring the assessment registers nn~er the Madras Act ori April 1, 1964, 
which will have currency for a penod of 5 years till March 31, 1969 
it 
cannot be said that a tax or that a tax at a higher rate had been imp.;.ed. 
No such tax having been imposed under the Madras Act, the provisos to 
s. 382(1) of the Mysore Act do not apply and the demands for payment 
of the property tax were not ju,tified. [757 E-H; 758 D-H; 759 A] 
Municipal Corporation v. Hiralal, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 125, followed; 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1302 to 
19@6 Of 1968. 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and. orders dat~d 
September 26, 27 and 29, 1967 of the ~ysore H~gh Court m 
Writ Petitions Nos. 907, 1004, 1005, 117) and 124' of 1967. 
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General, C. R. Somasekharan and 
R. B. Datar, for the appellants (in all the appeals). 
M. Veerappa and G. Narayana Rao, for respondent No. 1 ·(in 
all the appeals). 
S. S. Javali and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 2 (in all the 
appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. These five appeals, by speci;il leave, by the 
City Municipal Council, Mangalore and the Commissioner of the 
City Municipal Council, are directed against the orde~passed by 
the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 907, 1004, 1005, 
1175 and 1245 of 1967, quashing the demand notices issued by 
A 
B 
c 
the appellants against the first respondent in each of these appeals 
D 
for payment of property tax for the half-year ending September 
30, 1966. 
As the grounds of attack levelled against the demand 
notices by the said respondents are common, we will only refer to 
the averments contained in Writ Petition No. 907 of 1967 out of 
which Civil Appeal No. 1302 of 1968 arises. 
buildings situated in Ward II and Ward XX, within Mangalore 
Municipality in the South Canara District, which originally 
formed part of the Madras State and which, on reorganisation of 
E 
the States, became part of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.