LexLT. COL. SAWAI BHAWANI SINGH ETC versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- LT. COL. SAWAI BHAWANI SINGH ETC. v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. FEBRUARY 6, 1996 [AM. AHMADI, C.J., MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] The Rajasthan Urban Lands Act, 1964 : Sections 3 and 4 Statute Law-Taxing statute-Amending Act-Introduced defect in charging provision A of principal act-Thereby rendered the entire principal act invalid-Defective C portion deleted by subsequent amendment-Held : Defective portion was severable from rest of Act thus reviving it-Hence the principal act was within the legislative competence of the State LeiJislature. Constitution of India, 1950: D Schedule VII-'-List II Entry 49-Legislative competence-Levy of tax-Land and buildings-Must be levied separately as unit~Value of all lands and buildings-Levy of tax on-Would fall under List I Entry 8~State Legislation under List II Entry 49 and Central Legislation under List I Entry 86 (such as wealth tax) in respect of the same lands and buildings can co-exist. E Doctrine of Severability-Valid portion of provision severable from invalid portion-Invalid portion deleted-Held : after deletion the remainder can be sustained. The Rajasthan Urban Lands Tax Act, 1964 was enacted to provide for F levy of tax along on "urban land". The Act did not levy tax on buildings though within the competence of the State legislature. The Principal Act was amended bringing about drastic changes in the Act of far reaching consequences. By virtue of this amendment tax was sought to be levied or imposed upon both lands and buildings in the urban areas. The appellants G filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the Constitutional validity . of the Act as amended. While the writ petition was pending in the High Court the State Government issued an Ordinance bringing about correc- tive changes in the Act. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. H 145 A B c 146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the principal Act was by itself invalid more so after its amendment by the amending Act and Ordinance rendering it further void because it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature; that since levy of tax on all lands and buildings of a person taken together under Section 3 and 4 of the Act was outside the competence of the State Legislature; and that the entire measure was a piece of "still - born" legislation, incapable, because of its inseparability of being enlivened after its amendment by the Amending Ordinance. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. As per Entry 49 of List II, the State Legislature is competent to impose tax either on lands or on buildings or on both. A land or building or both of a person may be subjected to direct tax by the State Legislature under Entry 49 of List II and may also be subject matter of direct tax as a component of his total assets, like Wealth-tax by the Union D legislature as mentioned in Entry 86 of List I. These two taxes are separate and distinct in nature and it cannot be said that there was any overlapping or that the State Legislature was not competent to levy such tax on lands and buildings merely on the ground that they have been subjected to another tax as a component of the total assets of the person concerned. E [153-C-DJ F Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, [1972) 2 SCR 33, followed. D.C. Gouse & Co. v. State of Kera/a & Anr., [1980) 1 SCR 804 and The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Others v. The Buckin- gham and Camatic Co. Ltd., [1970) 1SCR268, relied on. B. Shama Rao v. The Union Tenitory of Pondicheny, [1967) 2 SCR 650, referred to. 1.2. The Rajasthan Urban Lands Tax Act, 1964, as it originally stood, provided for levy of tax on lands only. It could then have no taint of G unconstitutionality and none could be pointed out to us. It is the Amending Act which brought about the questioned changes in Sections 3 and 4; which gave the spill as if levy of tax was being made by the State legislature under Entry 86 of List I on the premise that the tax was being made leviable on a person taking into account his total assets in lands and buildings, which H taint, as identified, was later withdrawn by the Ordin'ance by causing - SAWAIBHAWANISINGHv. STATE 147 certain deletions to keep the remainder complete as a code. Thus it is A evident that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.