PANDIT RAM NARAIN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 20-09-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
September 20 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
PANDIT RAM NARAIN 
v. 
(1956] 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 
OTHERS. 
[BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and 
GovrnDA MENON JJ.] 
Tax im circumstances and property-UP. Town Areas Act, 
1914 (U.P. Act II of 1914)-S. 14(1)(f}-Nexus-Wluther resi· 
dence within Town Area necessary condition for imposition of tax 
-Tax imposed under clause (f) of s. 14(1) whether can be justi· 
fled under clause ( d)-Rule a whetluir invalid. 
The appellant was carrying on business, but WM not resid· 
ing within. the Town Area of Karhal. The Town Area Committee 
imposed a tax of Rs. 25 on him under clause (f) of s. 14(1) of 
the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, being a tax on 'circumstances and 
property'. The appellant filed a writ application in the High Court 
on the ground that there could be no assessment under clause (f) 
because he resided outside the jurisdiction of the Town Area Com· 
mittee. The High Court dismissed the application taking the view 
that it was unnecessary to consider "'·hether the tax could be 
legally imposed under clause. (f) as the tax imposed could clearly 
be justified under clause (d) of s. 14(1) which authorised the im· 
position of a tax on trades, callings or professions. 
Held, that residence was not a. sine qua non for the imposition 
of the tax i.nder clause (f), that the carrying on of business within 
the TOwn Area was a sufficient nexu,s for the imposition of the tax 
under clause (f) and that the assessment of the tax on the appellant 
under clause (f) .was legally valid. 
The legality of the tax imposed must be considered with ref· 
erence to the clause under which the assessment was actually made 
and a different clause under which the assessment might have fallen 
cannot be called in aid of the assessment. 
Rule 3 of the 'Rules regarding the Limitations, Restrictions and 
Rate subject to which the Circumstances and Property Tax shall be 
levied· by the Town Area Committees' framed under s. 39(2) of the 
Act does not go beyond s. 14(1)(!) and is not invalid. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 224 of 1955. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
665 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 7th May 1954 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 133 of 1952. 
Naunit Lal for the appellant. 
G. 0. Mathur and 0. P. Lal for respondents Nos. 
1 & 2. 
1956. September 20. The Judgment of the Cour~ 
was delivered by 
S. K. DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
from the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad dated the 7th of May 1954 
by whfoh the High Court dismissed an application of 
the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari under 
the provisions of article 226 of the Constitution. 
The appeal raises the question of the validity of the 
assessment of a tax on the appellant for the year 
1950-51 by the Town Area Committee ofKarhal under 
the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of sec-
tion 14 of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 
(U. P. Act·II of 1914), hereinafter referred to as the 
Act. 
The appellant resides in the town of Mainpuri and 
carries on the business of plying a motor bus on hire. 
The appellant's bus plies on alternat.e days between 
Etawah and Mainpuri, and the town of Karhal falls 
on the route between Etawah and Mainpuri. 
It is 
not now disputed that passengers travelling in the 
appellant's bus used to get down or get in at a bus 
stand within the town area of Karhal; the appellant 
had a booking office situate within the Town Area 
and tickets were issued to passengers and an account 
of the business was maintained in the said booking 
office. 
The Town Area Committee of Karhal 
imposed a tax of Rs. 25 on the appellant for the year 
1950-51 under the provisions of clause (f) of sub-sec-
tion (1) of section 14 of the Act, being a tax on 
'circumstances and property' and assessing the in-
come of the appellant from his business within the 
86 
1956 
Pandit Ram 
Narain 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
and others 
1956 
Paftdit Ratn 
Narain 
v. 
Tlie State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
and others 
S. K. Das}. 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956) 
Town Area of Karhal at a sum of Rs. 800 for the 
year. The appellant preferred an appeal against the 
assessment of the tax under section 18 of the Act, 
and the grounds taken by the appellant were (1) that 
he did not reside within the limits of the Town Area 
and (2) that he did not carry on any trade or busi-

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