MST. JADAO BAHUJI versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KHANDWA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 29-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·" -..\ 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MST. JADAO BAHUJI 
v. 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KHANDW A 
AND ANOTHER 
633 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J.C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA ArYAR JJ.) 
Tax on Trade-Maximum limit imposed by Constitution Act 
-Validating Act fflr period prior to imposition of limit-If affect-
ed by limit-Khandwa Municipality (Validation of Tax) ,Act, r94r 
(r6 of r94r)-Government of India Act, r935, s. r42·A. 
In 1922, the Municipal Committee, Khandwa imposed a tax 
on the trade of ginning and pressing cotton by means of steam 
or mechanical process. Certain suits were filed challenging the 
validity of the tax and ultimately in 1937, the Privy Council 
held that the tax had not been validly imposed. In 1941, the 
Governor enacted the Khandwa Municipality (Validation of Tax) 
Act, 1941, which sought to validate the tax imposed in 1922. In 
the meantime, s. 142-A was introduced in the Government of 
India Act, 1935, sub-s. (2) of which provided that the 'total 
amount payable in respect of any one person by way of taxes on 
professions, trades, callings and employments shall not, after 
March 31, 1939, exceed Rs. 50 per annum·. The appellant con-
tended that the validating Act was hit bys. l42-A(2) and to the 
extent that it imposed a tax above Rs. 50 per person per annum 
it was invalid. 
. Held, that the Validating Act was not hit by s. 142-A (2) 
Government of India Act, 1935. The powers of the Indian 
Legislatures included a power to pass retrospective and validat-
ing Jaws. 
Section l42-A(2) which put a limit on the amount of 
tax did not affect Ia ws relating to a period prior to March 3 r, 
1939, but affected only those relatrng to periods after that date. 
It circumscribed the legislative power by putting a date-line 
after which a tax in excess of Rs. 50 for a period after the date-
line could not be collected unless it came within the proviso. 
The Validating Act imposed the tax in excess of Rs. 50 not 
after March 31, Iy39, but before it. 
The United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum, [1940] F.C.R. IIO and 
Piare Dusadh v. King Emperor, [1944] F.C.R. 61, referred to. 
CrvrL APPELLATE JuRrsDrcTION: 
Civil Appe!11 No. 
180 of 1959. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated June 
30, 1955 of the former Nagpur High Court in Misc. 
First· Appeal No. 162 of 1949. 
Bo 
March 29. 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
z95z 
N. C. Chatterjee and B. P. Maheshwari, for the 
M st. J;;;:: Bahttji appellant. 
v. 
G. C. Mathur, for the respondents. 
Municipal Com-
mittee Khandwa 
1961. 
March 29. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
& Another 
delivered by 
Hidayatullah J. 
HmAYATULLAH, J.-This appeal, 
by certificate 
under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, 
has been filed against an order of the High Court at 
Nagpur dated June 30, 1955. 
Though the facts necessary to decide the appeal lio 
within a comparatively narrow compass, the case 
itself has had a long and somewhat unique history. 
In July, 1922, the Municipal Committee, Khandwa, 
resolved to impose a tax on the trade of ginning and 
pressing cotton by means of steam or mechanical 
process, and after sundry procedure, a notification was 
published on November 25, 1922 in the Central Pro-
vinces and Berar Gazette, imposing the tax. Certain 
traders including the appellant, affected by the tax, 
filed suits seeking injunction against the Municipal 
Committee on the ground that the tax was invalid and 
illegal. Meanwhile, the Municipal Committee had 
served notices on the present appellant, and demand-
ed and recovered the tax for 1923-24. The appellant 
then filed a second suit for refund of the tax paid by 
her on the ground that the imposition of the tax was 
illegal and ultra vires. The suits had varying fortunes 
in the Courts in India, till they reached the Privy 
Council. The Judicial Committee by its first decision 
remitted the cases for additional evidence, while the 
appeals were kept pending. The decision of the 
Judicial Committee is reported in Radhakishan 
Jaikishan v. Khandwa Municipal Committee (1). After 
the additional evidence was received, the Judicial 
Committee pronounced its decision, which is reported 
in Radhakishan Jaikishan v. ~Municipal Committee, 
Khandwa ('). The Judicial Committee hel4_ that the 
tax was not validly imposed by the Municipal Com-
mittee, and reversing the decree of the Judicial Com-
missioner, decreed the suits. 
(>) (1933) L.R. 61 I.A. 125. 
(2) (1937) L.R. 64 I.A. n8. 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME CO

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