LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD, ETC. versus NEW SHOROCK SPG. & WVG. CO., LTD., ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
288
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
OF
THE
CITY
OF
AHMEDABAD, ETC.
V.
NEW SHOROCK SPG. & WVG. CO., LTD., ETC.
Aprfl 17, 1970
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (59 of 1949), s. 152A-
Scope of-Constitutional validity of s: 152A (3).
The appellant Corporation assessod the immovable properties of
the
rcsponden.ts to property-tax
for the year1964-65 and. 1965-66 on the
basis of the 'fl.at rate' method under· the
Bombay Provincial
Municipal
Corpcration Act, 1949.
The ass"'smen.ts were challenged in the
High
Court but the petitions \\-'ere dismissed.
While appeals were pending in
this Court, the appellant initiated proceedings for the recovery of the taxes
and attached the properties of the respondents. The respondents challeng_
cd tk attachement proce<din.gs but their petitions were ,again dismissed.
Jn appeals against those orders in this Court the respondents prayed for
interim stay, but this Court did not grant stay
because
the appellant
undertock to return the
amounts if the1 respondents
succeeded. This
Coull thereafter allowed the. appeals by the respondents.
Meanwhile an
amending Act entitled the Bombay
Provincial Municipal
Corporation
(Gujarat, Amendment) Act, 1968, was passed introducing s. 152A into the
1949 Act, but that provision was not brought to the notice of this Court.
However, whe·n, the respondents
demanded re.fund of the amounts
illegally collected from them the appellant did not comply and hence; the
respondrnts moved the High Court again. Those petitions were allowed
and the appellant appealed to this Court. While the appeals were pending,
tho Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amen.dment and
Validity Provisions) Ordinance,
1969, was passed
and sub-s. (3)
was
intrnduced in s. !52A.
HELD: (!)Under s. !52A before a
Corporation can.
retain any
amount collected as property tax, there must be an. assessment according
to law.
But' in· the present case there were no asse'Ssment orders· in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the 1949 Act and the rules as amended
by the Amending Act, 1968. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to
retain. the amounts collected as the section does not authorise the Corpo-
ration to .retain amounts illegally collected. [293 G; 294 DJ
(2) Sub-Section (3) of s. l52A commands the Corporation to refuse
to refund the amount illegally collected despite the orders of this Court
and the High Court.
It markes a direct inroad into the judicial powers
of the State. Thet Legislatures under the Constitution have, within pres-
cribed limits, powers to make laws prospectively as well as retrospectively.
By exercise of those powe:rs
the legislature can. remove the basis of a
decision rendered by a competent court thereby rendering the decision
ineffective.
But, no legislature in
this Country has
power to ask
the
instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions l!iven
by courts. Therefore s, 152A(3), introduced by the
Ordi"'1nce is re-
pugnant to the Constitution. f294 H; 295 A-C; 297 F]
Shri Prithvi'Co/lorr Mill• Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality {1970] I
S.C.R. Mahal Chand Sethia v.·State of West Bengal Cr. A. No. 75/69 di.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
MUNI. CORP., AHMEDABAD v. NEW SHOROCK co. (i-Jezde, J.) 289
10-9-69 and Janpada Sabha, Ch!!indwara v. Ce'ntral Provinces Syndical
'Ltd. and- State of Madhya Pradesh v.
An1alga111aled
c:oal
Fields .lll
·(1970] 3·s.C.R. 745, followed.
·
The apart it authorises tlic Corp:Jration to retain the am·ounls illej!,"3.l!y
·collectetl and treat them as loans, that is, authorisCs the collection or ···,rccJ
Joans which is impermissible under the Constitution.
State of M"dhya Pradesh v. '-R.anbjirao Shinde, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 489,
followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Civil Appea\5
Nos. 2062 to 2064, 2072 and 2251 of 1968.
_Appeals from the',judgment and order aated July 3, 4, 1969 of
the Gujarat High O~urt in Special Civil Applications Nos. 52 of
C
1969 etc.
D
E
~
and
Writ I'etitions Nos·. 5-1., 52 a;nd 57 to 60 of 1970.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of. India for the
enforcement of fundamental right~.
,
.
B. Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants (in .C.A. Nok206~
ot 1969) and resp'ondent Nos. 2 to 4 (in W.P. Nos: 59 and 60 of
1970).
.
M. c. Seta/vad and l. N. Shroff, for the ~ppel!ants (in C.A.
No. 2063 of 1969) and respon9ents Nos. 2 to 4 (in W.P. NExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.