KAMTA PRASAD AGGARWAL ETC. versus EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BALLABGARH & ANR.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 20-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r . 
I 
I 
0 
[ 
827 
KAMTA PRASAD AGGARWAL ETC 
V, 
. 
EXECUTIVE OffiCER, BALLABGARH & ANR.. 
December 20, 1973 
(A. N. RAY, C.J., H. R. KJ-~sA, K. K. MATIIEW 
AND P. N. BHAGWAT[, JJ.) • A. AtAG!R!S\VAM~ 
Comtirutioll oj lntlia, 19SO, Art. 27~cop 1 I 
o/ the omhorities mcntio11td In Article can lmr>o:e ~a- Yl .. th.r .srore and ••ell. 
:x up to a l•m•t of IU. 258 • 
. Under the Punjab Professions, Tr~lles Callio 
· 
ACt 
1~56, n profcs.sion~ tax on a t:r.d<~ >Cal~ ""g. Employment Taxaooo 
Rs. '2s0 per ~nnum, bad been a nd Wlls being collc.; c~u bl«t to a lll:lXlll!um of 
The Panchayat. S:uniti, Ball~bgorb, in H~r•11.1. ;.,ued ay ;;,sta~~ of H31y.,... 
10 lcVV PIO(CSSIOOaJ t:JX nt the maximum rate of fU. 200 
~ e 
Jl II. IDI<oded 
to the Scbcdulcd lPCCified under the Gram Paocbayat s.rru:J: lll"dl.J"' ~ceo~,~ 
Act. 196.1. 
T~~ oppclla.nts • . in ~rit pelit.ions io the thgh Court," co'::;~nded 
that the .tmposttton. was tn Vtolalton of Article 276 or the Constitution ;0 thu 
the m:u.tmum ltmtt of· R>. 2SOI-
meot•oaed i_n the Arti<le applies eo rb' 
rotaltty ot the tax recovered by all. th~ autborrlles mentioned in tbe Article 
tal;cn logetber. Tite H11lh Court dtSmi>Sed the petitions. 
· 
Dismissin~ the ~ppc:lls to this Couct, 
HELD : Tbe H ish Court W:IS rigbt in reachioc the coD<Iusioo that tho 
Sl4te as well ~s the authorities mentioned in the Article can cJch imp01e 
r;u up to a limit of Rs. 250. [830 G-HJ 
. (I) The power o( tile St.lto to levy the U.t is derived from Entry 60 of 
ti,t l! o f lito V!l Schedule ro tl.te Coruriturian dealin~ "'rb ta.tes an profco· 
>H.>Il'o, lr...Jes, cal!in!;O and employments. The SlaLo ~ture is therefore, 
competent to legislate nnJ levy '"''"" o n professions. lr.IJes and employment< 
••d ""'Y also by law, confer a similar authority on a loc:>l authority. [828 F} 
12) A tax on profession can be imposed if a p<ooo c:m~es an • prol033ion'" 
Su.:h a r;u on pcofe,;ion ,. irrc::spccri•·c of tho quouon of l.QCOtD<. (829 G) 
13) The wor<.ls in the Article that ll•e total amount payoble to tlte State 
or to aoy o ne Municipality, o i.trict Bo:<Id. Loco! ~oord or loc-al outbonrr 
c:~nnot mean that the wnrd 'or' is used in a coojunch•"C scnst as ~ substttute 
lor the word •and'. This is clear from the proruo t<? "rtic!e 27612) whic
0
11. 
provi<Jc, that if before the romruen~ment of the Consurutton any State or • Y· 
authority hod impo>ed a tux earning the limit of Rs.
1 
25~ '~·c\ 
~po":~ 
conrinue; and tbls indicates rhnt both c:>n tax scpanre Y to 
c tml . 
· : 
hy rhc Article. [830 Ill 
( 
, . 
tlt 
,\rricle arc useJ io juxt>PQSirioo 
. 4) The wor<U 'aoy one person 
1R 
e · 
rsan moy be en.gaJcJ 
1Htb aoy one municir>ality e tc. 
One nnd 1117 s~m,e ~6 nod there may bo 
~n more thnn one or the items su~ge_,tcd m / ~rd "tot.U" rtlate:s to 2• 
'"'PO'i.tiou of to.t on more than one •!emit ;;;;;hc,.ities put to&<ther. (830 D} 
;,ruthonty 
levyin~ various ta:tts und not to :l 
• 
coed R• '<01- as contendc4 
($) If the total ot the l:UN should 001 ex;. 
ayi~q "profes<ioD'I tax of 
by Ute nppellant tl will meoa that •f a I'C~on~ Pon him a similor tox onlY 
K,, Hll lo the State the !<JC'~I authortiY can t:;' . tb a!IOmalau• consequcnc:cs, 
u~to the balance of Rs. t0t1. Tbi. "!'uuld lea ~ e ,.,.; .. ~<ilb lower iowme•. 
na~><·ly fu) ono uf the nutlto ririe• will hove 
1~ and '7b) if one outhorilv wnl 
.,htla tho,e with hirher incom .. woll ~('ca~. lo<rint the '" imPo"d bv the . . 
•mno,c • tu of Ute h:l!on<e •um left •. ter C\tbe r:t..<es. {830 FJ 
: ... 
Stutc, ull lite other putborilics 01ay not tmpaso 
··~ 
i. 
'828 
SUPREME COURT RBPOilTS 
[1974] 2 s.c.R. 
.CrviL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos. 2427·2428j6!S 
A 
, From the Judgment and Order dated tlte 25th August, 1967 and 
~7th May 1968 of the Punjab nnd Huryana High Court in C.W. Nos . 
.355 and 354 of 1967. 
Brlj Bans Kishore and M. M. Kshatrya, for the appellants. 
S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nacardja, M. Qumniarudclin and Vinocl Dlrawan, 
.for respondents No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · 
RAY, C.J.-These appeals are by certificate from the judgment 
·dated 17 May, 1967 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana. 
The appellants in writ petitions in the High Court challenged the 
legality of notices issued by the Executive 
Authority, Ballabgarh 
Panchayat Samiti claiming Rs. 200/- on account of profession tax for 
the year 1963-64. The notice was issued under section 76 cif th~ 
Gram Panchnyat Snmi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.