LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF HUBLI versus SUBHA RAO HANUMATHARAO PRAYAG & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF HUBLI v. SUBHA RAO HANUMATHARAO PRAY AG & ORS. March 24, 1976 [H. R. KHANNA, P. N. BHAGWATI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.J Bonibay Municipal Borougl1s Act, \Born. 18 of 1925), Ss. 78 to 84-WheJhcr 1usessn1ent list should be authenticated before the expiry of the official year. Stare Decisis-Principle when State High Courts have given a particular interpretation to State e11actn1ent. interpretation of statutes-Statute 1nust be read as a whole-Legislative interpretation as u guide. The scheme of ::-..:.. /8 to 84 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, shows that tne official year is the unit o: time for the levy of rates on buildings and lands. Under these provisions the provisional assessment hst is prepared for the official year, e.ther before the co111mencement or in the cour.~e of. the official year, objections are invited, and amendments con,,,cqu n 1 npon tile decisions on the ob1ections are carried out in the list. The assessment list is then authenticated. 1 he precess of as:.t.~S1nent and levy of tax .. hich begins with the preparation of the provisional assessment list is thus completed when the assessment list is authenticated. The assessment list. when authenfcated. becomes effective from the first dav of the official vear and gives rise to the liability of the rate-payers to pay the tax levied. [8R8 G-889 Cj For the assessment year 1951-52, the appell<1nt followed the rrocedure but the authentication was on July 24, 1952, after the expirv of the otfi ial year on March 31, 1952. Since property tax in accordance with the revised rates was sougnt to be levied, the respondents filed a suit for a declaration that the A p c D appel1ant was not entitled to recover ahy property tax at the rt:vised :a'es. F ' The suit was decreed and the decree was affirmed by the High Court, In appeal to this Court, it was contended that, ( 1) the authentication of the assessment list in order to be valid and effective, need not be made befo~e the expiry of the official year to which the assessment list relates; and (2) the suit was barred under s. 206A of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, F HELD : ( 1) The assessment list in order to be effective in_ levying the tax must be authenticated b:fore the expiry of the officiat year· aild if it is not, the assessn1ent list would be void and inoperative and would not 12ive rise to any liability in the tate-i:;ayers to pay tax. (891 H] (a) Once the view is taken that the process of levying the tax is complete only when the assessment list is authenticated and it is only then that the tax is levied on the rate-payers, it follows that the authentication must be made within the official year. The tax being a tax for the official year must obviously be levied during the official vear and since the ie,-y of tax is com- plete only when the assessment list is authenticated it must follow a fortiori that the authentication must take place in the official vear. Otherwise.· the tax for an official year would be leViable at any time, Without any time limit, even years after the expiration of the official year, which could not have been the intention of the legislature, since it is an annual tax intended to be levied for each official year. [889 D-FJ ' (b) Section 84 provides that it shall not be necessary to prepare a new as.sessment list every year but subiect to the condition of revision once in everv four years, the Chief Officer may adopt the as$essment l'st for any veaf, with necessary alterations for the year immediately following. The provision G H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 3 S.C.R. A postulates that there would be an assessment list, that is, the authenticated assessn1ent list, for each official yea•r before the close of that official year so that it can be adopted by the Ch.:ef Officer for the immedia.ely foliowine year. Otherwise, he would have to prepare a new provisional assessment list every lime wnen the AssessmenL List for the precec..ung year is not finalised and au.lr.;;nticated, and this might lead to the sta• tling result of there befng mo.re than one provisional assessment list in the process of finalisation at the same B c D E F G H time. (889 G-890 CJ (c) ln interpreting a provision of a statute the court is entitled and indeed bcu.nd to consider any other parts of the Act which throw light on the inten- tion of the legislature. The statu:e must, therefore
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.