LexGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR versus HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
394 A GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR: v. t.' HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTI). May I, 1975 · B H. R. KHANNA, M. H. BEG ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) c D F G H Article 246(3) and entry 49 in LJst II of 1th Schedule to Constitution-- Nature of fees-Quid pro quo-Legislature amending definition retrospectively whether encroaches upon judicial functions-Andhra Pradt:sh Gian1 Panchayat Act, 1964. The And.bra Pradesh Legislature passea' the Andhra Pradesh Gran1 Panclut- yat Act, 1964. The Kuthbullapur Gram Panchayat was established under the Act. The respondent constructed a factory and other buildings without the permission of the Gram Panchayat. Later on, the respondent asked for ex- post-facto permission. The Panchayat agreed to grant the permission on the respondent paying permission fee at 1-1/2 per cent on the capital value of the factory building ano' at 1 per cent on the capital value of other buildings. The Panchayat also called upon the respondent-; to pay the house tax. The respondents filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the levy of house tax and permission fee. The High Court allowed the Writ Peti- tion holding that the buildings constructed by the respondents did not fa11 within the definition of a house and further ruled that since no services were rendered, the levy of permission fee was illegal. Section 69 of the Act autho- rises the Gram Panchayat to levy a house tax. The definition of house as it stood when the High Court delivered its judgment was a building or hut fit for human occupation whether as a residence or otherwise, having a separate principal entrance from the common way and included any shop, workshop or warehouse or any building used for garaging or parking of buses or as a bus- stand. The High Court held that the buildings other than factory premises were not a house because their separate principal entrance was situated on the road belonging to the respondents. Ali regards the factory buildings, the High Court held that the Legislature included shops, workshops, and warehouses, but clid not include factory within tho definition of the house. The demand of house tax was held to be illegal. After the judgment of the High Court was delivered, !he Legislature amended the definition of the house retrospectively to incluCie the buildings constructed by the respondents. The appellant contended that the new definition of the house clearly in- cludes the buildiµgs constructed by the respondent and that the Pancbayat was entitleQ to impose house tax on the respondent Secondly, the Gram Pancha- yat lays roads, provides for drainage and lights, scrutinises the plans submitted for intended construction, and, therefore, is entitled to charge the permission fee. In the alternative, it was contended that the permis5lion fee though called a fee is. really in the nature of a tax on buildings and may be upheld &8 such. Respondent contended :- 1. By redefining the term 'house' with retrospective effect, the Legislatur_e encroached upon a judicial function. 2. Without a proper budget, the Gram Panchayat cannot impose taxes. • • • A. P. GOVT. v. H. M. T. (Chand~achud, /.) 3: There· is ·no provision in_ the Act enipowei:ing tb.e Gram· Pancba-. -. yat to levy permission fees. · 4. No services are rendered for which perinission fees . can be charged. Partly allowing the appeal, 395 A HELD : The Legislature has power to pass a- law JlTOspectiveIY as well ~ls B retrmpectively. The Legislature can remove the baslS of the decision ren~ dereo' by a court. The Amending Act does not ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decision given by the High Court, but merely removes the basjs of that decision. Under Article 246(3) read with Entry 49 in Llst II of the 7th Schedule, the State Legislature has exclusive power to make laws with respect to taxes on lands and buildings .. Section 69 of· the Act authorises the Gram Panchayats to levy house _tax in the villages under their respective juris6.'iction. The house tax was rightly imposed by the C Gram Panchayat. [398 B.F., 399 DEF] HEW FURTHER-The argument about absence of budget was not made in the High Court and as it involves an investigation into facts, this Court can- not go into it for the first time. [40G-DE] HELD FURTHER-There is no provision in the Act empowering the GTani Panchayat to levy fees on the permission to construct a building. In
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.