MAHAPALIKA OF CITY OF AGRA versus AGRA BRICKKILN OWNERS' ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 23-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
t 
827 
MAHAPALIKA OF CITY OF AGRA 
A 
v. 
AGRA BRICKKILN OWNERS' ASSOCIATION & ORS. 
March 23, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 276, Government of India 
Act, 
1935, 
s. 142A(2) and U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (U.P. 2 of 1959), s. 172, 
proviso-Scope of. 
In 1947 the State Government issued a notification imposing a tax under 
s. 128(1) (ii) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 
~916, on brick manufa~turers. 
The affected assessees filed a suit for a declaration that the tax was void and 
not exigible. The suit was decreed. 
The appellant appealed to the 
High 
Court. 
By that time the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, had come 
into force, replacing the 1916-Act. 
Section 172 of the 1959-Act corresponds 
to s. 128 of the 1916-Act providing for the levy of various types of taxes on 
professions, trades and callings. The proviso to s. 172 provided that 
where 
any tax was being lawfully levied in the area before the commencement of the 
Constitution, such tax may continue to be levied until provision to the contrary 
is made by Parliament. Construing the proviso, the High Court held that the 
maximum tax leviable under s. 172(2), after the 1959-Act had come into force 
on Feb. 1, 1960 was only Rs. 50/- since that was the quantum of tax levied 
before the commencement of the Constitution. Section 142A(2) 
of 
the 
Government of India Act, 1935, provided that the total amount payable in 
respect of any one person to any one municipality by way of taxes on pro-
fessions etc., shall not exceed R.s. 501- per anhum. 
Allowing the appeal of the Mah;::palika to this Court in part, 
HELD : The period before the Constitution of India had come into force, 
that is, before January 26, 1950, will be governed by the maximum of Rs. 50/-
fixed by the Government of India Act. 
Article 276 of the Constitution also 
sets a ceiling on such taxes, but, the maximum is not Rs. 50/- but Rs. 250/-. 
Therefore, for the period from January 26, 1950, to the date when the 1959-
Act came into force, the maximum tax leviable will be Rs. 250/-
As regards 
the l?eriod after Feb. l, 1960, the interpretation put by the High Court on the 
proviso to s. 172 that it was only the quantum of tax and not its description 
that was kept alive and that, therefore. the valid tax is only up to the maximum 
of Rs. 50/- mentioned in s. 142A of the Government of India Act is erroneous. 
The words 'such tax' in the proviso to s. 172 relates to 'any tax' and saves all 
species or classes of taxes and does not merely preserve the quantum of rate 
of such tax. Since the class or species of tax is the correct connotation of 
the expression 'such tax' and 'any tax' the tax on the trade or calling is saved, 
and its rate is as fixed in the Notification, subject to a maximum of Rs. 250/-. 
Therefore. the period after Feb. 1. 1960 will also be controlled by the same 
col!sti~tional maximum of Rs. 250 /-, unless any supervening parliamentary 
legislation, as contemplated by s. 172 of the 1959-Act, comes into being. 
[829 
B, C, G; 830 D-G] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 7th 
October, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. No. 2001/64. 
R. N. Sharma and C. P. Lal for the Appellant. 
B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYM, J.-A crudely drafted plaint, with little legal light 
to make out a good cause of action, somehow resulted in a decree as 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976) 3 S.C.R. 
prayed for at the trial stage and in appeal. But the defendant who is the 
appellant before us, the Mahapalika of the City of Agra, pursued the 
matter m Second Appeal where, regardless of the scope of the suit or \ 
the precise ground alleged in the plaint, an adverse judgm~nt was 
rendered affecting the municipality in a general way. 
Naturally, the 
appellant Mahapalika has come to this Court by special leave under 
Art. 136 of the Constitution, overstepping the limits of law. a little, 
as will presently appear. 
The brief facts necessary to appreciate the contentions on which 
the High Court has pronounced may now be stated, although, in so 
doing, we have to depart from the pleadings. 
Indeed, the questions 
are of general public importance and so,, apart from Lechnical bounds, 
we proceed to declare the law. 
,, The Agra

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