MUNICIPAL COMMITIEE, AKOT versus MANILAL MANEKJI PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 17-11-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL COMMITIEE, AKOT 
1·. 
MANILAL MANEKJI PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER 
November 17, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, c. J., J. c. SHAH, s. M. Suw, v. RAMASWAMI 
AND c. A. v AJDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Constitu;ioa.._of India, Article 276-Municlpal tax« /evitd hy two 
notifications under t~ Berar Municipal Law, 1886,-after its repeal notf. 
fications continued hr opeTation by saving 
Clause in C.P. Municipil/itill 
Act, 1922-which was later amended and re-named C.P. and Berar Muni-
cipalities Act, 1922-Cetrtral ProfeSlion Tax Limitation Act, 1941 limitinl 
municipal taxes-s. 3 read with item 4 of Schedule saving tta!s levied 
under C.P. ,\1unicipalities Act, 1922-Whether taxes under -two notific• 
tio11.s saved and in force at co1nmencemenl of Constitutio~r whethu 
hit hy Art. 276(2). 
The appellant Municipality which was constituted and empowered lo 
impose certain taxes under the Berar Municipal Law, 1886, by one noti-
fication in 1899 imposed a tax on professions and trades practised in the 
Municipality; and by another issued in 1908, imposed a tax on the ginning 
and pressing of cotton. 
The Berar Municipal Law was repealed in 1924 and in its place the 
C.P. 
Municipalitie, Act (II of 1922), with certain modifications, 
WM 
applied to Berar. 
By virtue of a saving provision ins. 66(6) of lhc Act, 
any 'axes previously imposed by a Municipality continued in opt;ration 
even if they were not specified in the Act. 
After Berar became a pan of 
British India, by the Berar Laws (Provincial) Act (XV of 1941 ), which 
came into force on August I, 1941 and which was passed by the Governor 
of the Central Provinces and Berar under s. 93 of the Government 
of 
India Act, 1935, various acts including the C.P. Municipalit:es Act. 1922, 
\\'CfC amended and ex'ended to Berar. The title of Ac1 11 of 1922 be> 
came the Central Provinces and Berar 
Municipalities Act, 
1922, 
and 
:dtho1Jgh the Act as pre.viou1;Jy applied to Bcrar was to cease to have effect. 
notifications etc. deemed to have 
been made or issued under the C.P. 
\funicipalities Act, 1922 were saved. 
In the meantime, by the Profession Tax Limitation Act (XX of 1941), 
passed by the Central Assembly. which came into force on April I, 1941, 
taxes payable to a Municipality were restricted by s. 2 of :he Act in re'pect 
of any one periOn to Rs. 50 
per annum. 
However, by s. 3 read with 
ilem 4 of the Schedule to the Act. any tax levied by a Municioality in 
'"'pect of any profession, trade. calling etc. imposed under s. 66(1 )(b) 
oi the C.P. Municipalities Act. 1922, was exempted from the restricti09 
contained in s. Z. 
The respondents filed writ petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 challen~­
inR certain demands made on thrm by the Municipal C'..ommittee. Akot. in 
rosnect of tax levied under rhe two notification, of 1899 and 1908. 
It 
was contended by them that in view of An. 276, the notification• under 
\\''hich the tax was imooscd could not be enforced except to the txteot 
Provided under Art. 276(2) of the Constitution. The case of the Muni-
cipal Committee 
was that the notifications 
were in force 
immcdiatefy 
before the commencement of the Constitution and therefore were not bit 
by Art. 276(2). The High Court rejected thi• contention and allowed 
the petilion. 
A. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE V. MANlLAL (Sikri, /.) 
IOI 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
committee that item 4 in the Schedule to Act XX of 1941 covered the im-
pugned lax because the Act. was the same under which the tax ~":' being 
imposed and recovered and the fact that the title of the C.P. Mu01c1palit1es 
Act, 1922, was changed by the Berar Laws (Provincial) Act, 1941, did 
mt make any difference; that if a tax was deemed to be imposed under 
the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, it was still a rax imposed 
11Dder s. 66(1) of the C.P. Municipalities Act, 1922; and that it was a 
case of mis.description that the word Berar had not been mentioned in 
item 4 of the Schedule. 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal : 
Item 4 in the Schedule to Act XX of 1941 must be construed strictly 
because, firstly, it is an exemption from the limitation imposed by s. 2 of 
the Act and, secondly, the effect of s. 3 and item 4 of the Schedule is to 
continue the leviability of a tax and must therefore be construed like 
a 
taxing statute. 
, 
Various taxes must have been imposed by the Municipalities in 
the 
Central Provinces by virtue of notification

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