THE AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS versus THE JANAPADA SABHA, CHHINDWARA

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 10-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD. 
,96, 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE JAN AP ADA SABHA, CHHINDW ARA 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. C. Das GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.J 
Coal Tax-L,gality of-Local Legislature authorising stick 
levy by local authority-Legislative competence-Central Provinces 
Local Self-Government Act. r920 (C. P. 4 of r920), s. 5r-Govern-
ment of India Act, r9r5 (5 & 6 Geo. 5, Ch. 6r), ss. 80A(3), 8r(r)(3), 
84(2)-Government oj India Act, r935 (26 G,o. 5, Ch. 2), s. r43-
C onstitution oj India, Art. 227. 
Section 51 of the Central Provinces Local Self-Government 
Act, 1920, empowered a district council, subject to the previous 
sanction of the local Government, to impose "any tax, toll or 
rate, other than those specified in ss. 24, 48,49, and 50.'' On 
March 12, 1935, an Independent Mining Local Board functioning 
in the area in which the petitioners were working certain mines 
situated therein, and having vested in it all the powers of a dis-
trict council, resolved to impose a tax on coal, coal-dust and 
coke manufactured at the mines or sold within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the Board. The petitioners who were served with 
notices of demand requiring them to pay certain sums of money 
as the tax due by them for despatches of coal from their mines, 
challenged the legality of the levy of the tax on the grounds, 
intl'f alia (1) that the Act which by s. 51 authorised the imposi-
tion of the tax, had been passed by the local legislature without 
the previous sanction of the Governor-General, thereby contra-
vening s. 80A(3) of the Government of India Act, 1915, and that 
even if it was found that the Act was validly passed before the 
coming into force of the Government of India Act, 1919, which 
introduced s. 8oA into the Act of 1915, the power conferred by 
s. 51 to levy tax was exercised only in 1935 and by that date 
s. 8oA had been introduced into the Government of India Act, 
1915, and that thereafter there could be no legal imposition of a 
tax without the previous sanction of the Governor-General being 
obtained, (2) that s. 51 of the Central Provinces Local Self-
Government Act, 1920, on its language and ,in the context of 
other provisions referred to in that section, did not authorise 
~ the levy of a tax of the nature of the coal tax, and (3) that, in 
any case, the tax ceased to be legally leviable after the coming 
February zo. 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
r96r 
into force of the Government of India Act, r935, and of the Con-
stitution of India, since a tax like that in question could be im-
Amalgamated 
posed only by the Central Government. 
Coalfields Ltd. 
Held: (r) that the Central Provinces Local Self-Government 
v. 
Act, 1920, having received the assent of the Governor-General, 
Janap~da Sabha, its validity cannot be challenged in view of the saving clauses 
Chhindwa•a 
in the proviso to s. 80A(3) and s. 84(2) of the Government of 
India Act, 1915. 
(2) that the validity of Central Provinces Local Self-
Government Act, 1920, when enacted, not being open to any 
objection under the Government of India Act, 1915, any subse-
quent amendments to the latter Act could not in any manner 
affect its continued validity and operation. 
(3) that on the proper construction of s. 51 of the Act of 
1920, the levy of a coal tax is not excluded from the purview of 
the local authority. 
(4) that the continued levy of the tax in question even 
after the coming into force of the Government of India Act, 
r935, and the Constitution of India, is valid in view of s. 143 of 
the Act of 1935 and Art. 227 of the Constitution. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petition No. 31 of 1959. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, IS. N. 
Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. 
Vohra, for the petitioners. 
B. Sen and J. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
1961. February 10. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
1 
' 
Ayyangar ]. 
AYYANGAR, J.-This petition under Art. 32 has 
l 
been filed impugning the validity of two ~otices of 
_, 
demand served on the petitioners requiring them to 
pay what has been compendiously described as "coal 
tax" by the respondent, which is a Local Board con-
stituted under the Central Provinces & Berar Local 
Government Act, 1948 (C. P. & Berar Act XXXVIII 
of 1948). The ground of challenge is that there was 
no legislative p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.