LexRAM BACHAN LAL versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G RAM BACHAN LAL l'. THE STATE OF BffiAR February 28, 1967 [K. SUBBA RAo, C.J., J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI, V, RAMASWAMI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.j Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (8. & 0. Act 7 of 1922), Ss. 82(1)(1!), 1SOA·E, 388 and 389-Profession tax-If infringes funda- mental rightJ-Constitution of /lldia, Arts. 14, 19 & 31. The respondent-Notified Area Committee-imposed profession tax under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 and issued demand notices to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the provisions of Act aJ infringing Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution on the grounds that (i) Ss. 388 and 389 of the Act gave aJbitrary power to the Government to constitute either a municipality under s. 4 of the Act or a notified area committee under s. 388; (ii) the rate of tax to be levied had been left to the dis- cretion of the Commissioner and the Government without giving any guidance as to the amount of tax; (iii) proviso (iv) to s. 82(1) was void as it did not give any indication as to the circumstanc~ under which the Government should direct the Commissioners to levy lax under s. 82(1 )(ff); (iv) the Act did not lay down proper procedure for the asse.iSment and determination of the tax; and (v) no appeals or reference& were provided in the Act and the only remedy of an assessee who was aggrieved by the assessment, was to file. a revieviT under s. 150E. Held : The petition must be dismissed. (i) Sections 4 and 388 of the Act give sufficient guidance to the Government. Section 4(i) contemplates a town containing not less than five thousand inhabitants and a town of a particular density of popula- tion, and further that three-fourths of the adult male population should be engaged in pursuits other than agriculture. These requirements show that the area has reached such a stage of development that the Govern- ment should constitute a municipality in the area. Section 388 would come into picture only if the requirements of s. 4 are not satisfied but yet the Government considers it necessary to make administrative provi~ sions for all or any of the purposes of this Act. (7 C-DJ (ii) Schedule IV specified the maximum amount of tax that can be levied and s. 150 D lays down the purposes for which the tax can be utilised. This gives sufficient guidance to the Commissioners or the State Government to fix the rate of tax. [7 G] The Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema [1965] 2 S.C.R. 477. relied upon. (i'i) The Government will only direct the Commissioner to levy the tax if the Commis.ioners do not carry out their duty properly. (8 C-DJ H (iv) Explanation (i) to S. 150-A of the Act clearly provides that if a person is assessable to income tax under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 h;s taxable income would be determined according to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. and if he is not assessable, his taxable income 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1967] 3 S.C.R. would be computed as far as may be in accordance with the procedure A laid down in the said Act. (v) In the circumstances, S. 150-E gives a reasonable remedy to an aggrieved party. Sec•ion 150-E(2) drrect> that the applicatron has to be heard and determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Ss. 115, 117, 118 and 119. The subject-matter of Profession Tax is not very complicated and the procedure provided for the assessment and ro- B view is reasonable. (8 E-FJ Rohtas Industries Ltd., Dalm/anagar v. State of Bihar (1965} Bihar L.J.R. 886, referred to. ORIGINAL J URISDICTJON : Writ Petition No. 194 of 1966. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. B. Sen and K. K. Sinha, for !he petitioner. B. P. Jha, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. In this petition under art. 32 of the Constimtion a notice of demand issued by the Dehri-Dalmianagar Notified Area Committee demanding Rs. 100/ • on account of Profession Tax levied under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (B. & 0. Act VII of 1922 )-hereinafter referred to as the Act-for the period 1963-64 to 1965-66 from the petitioner, Shri Ram Bachan Lal, Land Officer, who is in the employment of Roh!as Industries Ltd., Dalmianagar, is sought to be quashed on the ground that !he provisions of the Act under which it has been issued infringe the fundamental rights
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.