LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus RAJA JITENDRA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF UITAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RAJA nTENDRA SINGH January 18, 1972 99 B [S. M. SIKIU, C.J., A. N. RAY AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] U.P. Lar11e fand Ho/din[l3 Tax Act No. 31 of 1951 and Rules mad• thereund•l<-Rule 6-A coming into force 011 23 AprU 1958-RJ.le whether app/ir.able to assessment year 1365 Fasli-Jurisdiction of High Court in ntatter of construction of Rule. C The Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1357 came into force on I July 1957. The Rules under the Act were pub!Wi- ed in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 23 November 1957. Rule 6-A was added to the Rules by an·amendment on 23 April 1958. Rule 6-A states that where any land holdings has been legally sub-let by a disabled landholder mentioned in sub-section ( !) of section 157 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the holdina tax D rJlall be remitted to the extent of thar chargeable on the land sub-Jet if ita annual value was arrived at by mul~~ng the rent by 10}. The respondent was prior to the abolition of indari in Uttar Pradesh, the Raja of properties consistlru! of 28 villages in District Rai Bareilly. He was a mmor till 3 Mal'ch 1°§58 and attained majority on 4 March 1958. The properties were under the management of the Court of Warda from 1945 to 1953, and, thereafter, under the management of the District Judge Rai Bareilly up to 4 March 1958. On I April, 1958, the Tax E Assessment Officer sttved a notice, under s. 7(2) of the 1957 Act on the respondent, for the assessment Fasli year 1365 commencing on 1 July 1951 and ending on 30 June, 1958. The respondent filed a return ana claimed benefit of exemption under Rule 6-A of the said Rules in res- pect of land which had been sub-let to tensnts under the order of the Court of Wards and the District Judge when the respondent's pl'operties were under their management. The claim was rejected. The Commis- sioner in appeal held that Rule 6-.A was not applicable to assessment for F t~ year 1365 Fasli year. The writ petition filed by the respondent chal- lel)glnf the. Commi88ioner's order was allowed by the Sinale Judge. ~n lll'Pt• by special leave the State contended before this Court that (1) '111e tax was to 'be assessed on the armuaJ value of the landholding as on 1 Jillv 1957, and,' in as much as Rule f>.A did not come into existence on I !u!y. 1957, the respondent waa not entitled to the benefit of the rule; (ii). l\l!le 6-A was not applicable because it was not proved that the llllld was la#Qlly. sub-let; (iii) The High Court was wrong in issu\na the writ. !>" G the sround of mi~onstructlon of Rule 6-A by the assess10g autbonties because it was not a petent error. •HeJd: (i) (a) Rule 6-A is to be l'ead with sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. Assessme11t was for the entire agricqJtural year from 1 July 1957 ~ 30 June 195&. The land whii:h had been lawfully sub·let by the Olllrt of Ward, and the District Judge could not be in the pooseooi()ll of the resPQDdent in the &WSlilllent year. Therefore, in assesain& the IJ.Dct W hol~for the year 1365 Fasli, th: respondent wss entitled to claim "-'" jt, Rule 6-A in respect of land which had been legally sub-let. The fact tb.ilt! he beaime a major from 4 March 1958 did not deprive hlm of' the benefit. u 02 J>.FJ 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1972] 3 S.C.R. (b) The Act came into force on 1 July 1957. The assessmeat was A to be made for the year commencing 1 July 1957. Rules were made under s. 29 of the Act. Rules, obviously· came into existence subsequent to the Act coming into force. Rules are procedural. Rules relate to assessments. The assessment is for the '1'ntire year. The assessment in the particular instance was made after Rule 6-A came into force. Tile assessment was pursuant to notice which was delivered on 1 April 1958. The assessment was for the whole year ending 30 June 1958. Therefore, B Rule 6-A would be applicable to the assessment which was not only pend- ing but would be upto 30 June, 1958 within ·which period the rule became effective for the assessment yea~. The contention that Rule 6-A was not made retrospective and therefore did not apply for an assessment for Fasli 1365 was devoid of merit. r102 H-103 Cl (ii) Jn the High Court, the State did not dispute the legality of sub- letting. It was, therefore, not open to the State to raise the contention c that the land had not been legally sub-let. f103 D1 (iii) The respondent raise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.