LexSAROJINI TEA CO. (P) LTD versus COLLECTOR OF DIBRUGARH, ASSAM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAROJINI TEA CO. (P) LTD v. COLLECTOR OF DIBRUGARH, ASSAM AND ANR. JANUARY 24, 1992 A (M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B Assam Taxation a/Ceiling on La'nd Holdings Act, 1956 (as amended by Assam Act VIII of 1971): Section 12-.-Land Ceiling-Excess land-Compensation- Compu, tation of 'Annual Land Re1•, 1111e '-.Whether' incllldes 'surcharge' on land C revenue and 'local rate' payable under Assam -f.,and. llevenue and Land (Surcharge) Act.' 1970 and Local Rates Re,fulatiim, 1879: Belated appeal-Condonation of delay--Whether provisions of Limitation Act, I 96J would apply. · The appellant, a tea company; whose land was deciared excess under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings 'Act, 1956 ·as amended by Assam Act, VIII of 1971, was awarded compensation, equal to 50 times of the annual land revenue of the excess land as, provided un4er section 12 ·of the Act. However, the compensatiori was assessed excluding the surcharge DA land revenue and the local rate payable in respect of the land. On ap~eal by the Company, the. Di.strict Judge enhanced the amount of compensation by including the surcharge on land rev- enue as well as the local ~ate as patt ~(the _annual fand revenue, against which respondent No. 1 filed a writ)retition before the High Court. · · D E F The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the ex- pression 'full rate of annual land revenue' meant only the revenue assessed on the land as such and not the local rates leviable under the Local Rates Regulation, 1879 nor the surcharge on land revenue levied under the Assam Land Revenue and Land (Surcharge) Act, 1970. G Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal by special' leave to this Court. On the question : whether the surcharge on land revenue iev~ ied under the Assam Land Revenue and Land (Surcharge) Act, 1970 H 371 372 SUPREME COURT REPOR.1 S 11992) I S.C.R. A and the local rate payable under the Local Rates Regulations, 1879 can be held to he land revenue, B c Allowing the appeal in part, this Court, HELD:l.1 The expression 'surcharge' in the context of taxa- tion means an additional imposition which results in enhancement of the tax and the nature of the additional imposition is the same as the tax on which it is imposed as surcharge. [p. 381 B-C] Bisru Stone Lime Co. ltd. & Anr. etc. v. Orissa State Electricity Board & Anr., [1976) 2 SCR 307; Commissionerof/ncome Tax. Kera/a v. K. Srinivasan, [1972] 2 SCR 309;Vishwesha Thirthaswamiar & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Anr., [1972] 1SCR137, relied on. C. V. Rajagopalach.ariar v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 Mad. 543, referred to. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, referred to' D 1.2 A surcharge on land revenue is an enhancement of the land revenue to the extent of the imposition of surcharge. The na- ture of such imposition is the same viz. land revenue on which it is a surcharge. [pp. 381 C; 383 C-DJ 1.3 The surcharge payable under the Assam Land Revenue E and Land (Surcharge) Act, 1970 constitutes land revenue and has to be taken into account for assessing compensation under section 12 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956. [p. 385 C-D] F G H 1.4 In view of the provisions of section 12 of the Assam Ceiling Act, the measure for assessment of compensation is 'the full rate of annual land revenue' payable for the land acquired. [pp. 377H; 378 A) 1.5 The use of the words "full rate of" before the words "an- nual land revenue payable for the land" in s. 12 (a) (1) (i) of the Ceiling Act docs not have a hearing upon the nature of the levy, which is land revenue. The said words have reference to the quan- tum of the levy which would form the basis for assessment of com- pensation and do not render inapplicable the principles that imposi- tion of surcharge on land revenue is only an enhancement of the land revenue and nature of the said imposition is land revenue. Vishwesha Thirthaswamiar & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Anr .. (1972) 1 SCR 137, relied on. [P. 382 D-E] ;.. TEA CO. v. COLLECTOR 373 Benoy Mazumdar v. Deputy Commissioner. Cochin & Oi·s., (Civil A Ruic No. 28 of 1977 decided on 28.9.1981 by Gauhati High Court), inapplicable. 1.6 The provisions for assessment of surcharge contained in the Surcharge Act indicate that while land revenue is assessed in one settlement and continues till the succeeding settlement, surcharge B having been imposed during the currency of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.