LexRAMA KRISHNA RAMANATH versus THE .JANPAD SABHA, GONDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Shtenf
Utlar l'radtth
v.
La~sf.mi !cl F•clory
Sark•r J,
I9Ct
Feirlmr;• i'.
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
its award.
A rule duly framed
under the Act
requiring the Tribunal to pronounce its decision in
open court is therefore not in conflict with s. H.
The result is that these appeals fail and are
dismissed with costs.
Appeals di.smis.~ed.
RA:IIA KRISHNA RAMANA'J'H
v.
THE .JANPAD SABHA, GONDIA
(B. P. 81'.l'HA, C .. T., K. Sr:BBA R..i.o, ~. RA.JAGOPAT.A
An'ANGAP., .J. R. Mr:DHOLKAR and T. L.
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J.J.)
!Jegi~lative /)nu·er-'1
1errninal Tax-[n1pru1ition by Dist.rirt
Counr.il under Proi:i11cirzl Strif?t!r:-Con.'ltitution .4ct Placing ta:r
in
}'etl".ral
Legis{afit'e
List-i'Jciring 7)rrn:ision-Po1l'er of
l)ro1·;ncin.l
legislatur~ to continue ta:r-C.l'. and lferar local
Self Uot'unw:nt Act, 1920 (C. P. 4 of 1920)-C.P. aud llerar
J.oco! IJ01,ernm.ent Act, 1948 (C.P . .18 of l.?48). s. /!12-C.l'.
and Bmn· f,oca.l G'o;·mzment (Amendmwr) Act, 1.?49 (':.P. 32
nf /!149)--G'overnment of India Act, 104J (.1G <Im. 5 CJ" 2. ),
8. J.13 (2).
Cnder the C. P. and Berar Local Self Government Act
1920, the District Council of Bhandara. in 1925, imposed a
te<minal tax on the export of bidis and birli lea\-cs by rail
out of Rhandara district. By the Govrrnrnent of India Act,
1q35, ter1ninal tax '"'as included in the Federal Legislati\•e
List but s. 143 (2) of the Act prO\·idecl that such a tax which
was being la\vfully levied under a la\\' in force on January I,
1935, n1ay continue to he levied
until
provision to the
c0ntrary was macic hy the Federal l.c~gi~lature.. 1~he District
Council continued to leavy and collect thr: tax. In 1948 the
C P. an<l Berar Local Government Act, 1948, can1e into force
which repealed the 1920 Act.
It replaced
the District
Council, Bhandara, with three Janapada Sabhas. Clause (c}
of the proviso ti> the saving section s. 192 provided that aH
rates, taxes an<l cessr.s due to the District Council
sh~II be
de~u1ed lo be due to the Sabha to whose ar<a they pert'ltl\Cq.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
71
By an amending Act of 1949 the Provincial Legislature
replaced cl. (b) of the proviso to s. 192 by a new cl. (b) which,
inter alia, continued in force all taxes which were in force
immediately before the commencement of the 1948 Act, this
amendment
was
given
retrospective
effect
from
the
commencement of 1948 Act. The appellant contended that
the 1948 Act which repealed the 1920 Act did not save the
terminal tax, and once the tax was discontinued the Provincial
Legislature had no power left to impose it afresh and that
the amendment was accordingly beyond its legislative compe-
tence.
The respondent contended that s. 143 (2) of the
Government of India Act, 1935, vested in the Provincial
Legislature plenary power to legislate in respect of every
tax which was being lawfully levied in the province, that cl.
(c) of the proviso to s. 192 of the 1948 Act saved the tax and
that the amendment was validly made and it saved the tax
with retrospective effect from the
date of the repeal of
the 1920 Act.
Held, that the terminal tax was validly continued by the
retrospective amendment of cl. (b) to the proviso of s. 192 of
1948 Act. Section 143 (2) of the Government of India Act,
1935, did not confer upon the Provincial Legislature any
plenary power of legislation in respect of taxes which were
being validly imposed. But it did confer upon the Provincial
Legislature a limited
le~islative power to enact a law with
reference to the tax levy so as to continue it. The power of
the Provincial Legislature to repeal the 1920 Act which
imposed the tax was co-extensive with its power to enact
such a law.
In exercise of this limited legislative power the
Provincial I ... egislature wa~ competent to enact the Amending
Act of 1949.
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the
Bominion, [1896] A.C. 348, referred to.
.
Clause (c) of the proviso to s. 192 of the 1948 Act did not
save ·the future imposition of the tax; it merely provided
for the collection of taxes already accrued in favour of the
District Councils by the successor Sabhas. The words in this
clause "due to the District Council'' referred only to taxes
which had accrued on the date of the repeal of the 1920 Act
and did not include taxes which accrued later and became
payable subsequent to that date. The subsequent amendment
of 1949 coulExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.