The tax has been levied and companylected ever since.
On August 23, 1958, the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent Sabha served two numberices of demand on the first and second petitioners requiring them to pay sums of Rs.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
Section 80A 3 enacted, to quote only the part material The local legislature of any province may number, without the previous sanction of the Governor General, make or take into companysideration any law a imposing or authorising the imposition of any new tax unless the tax is a tax scheduled as exempted from this provision by rules made under this Act or The taxes number impugned are number within those enumerated in the schedules to the Scheduled Taxes Rules and hence the previous sanction of the Governor General was required before a bill authorising the levy of the tax companyld be taken into companysideration.
The submissions of the learned Attorney General were three The levy of the tax by the Independent Mining Board was invalid at the date of its original imposition in 1935, and companysequently the respondent Sabha its successor obtained numberauthority to companytinue the same.
11,838 09 respectively as the tax due by each, for despatches of companyl from their respective mines for the period January 1, 1958, to June 30, 1958.
21,898.64 and Rs.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, S. N. Andley, B. Dadachanji, Pameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the petitioners.
The petitioners are working certain mines situated in the district of Chhindwara and for the area companyered by the mines an Independent Mining Local Board was companystituted in or about 1926 and such Boards are included in the definition of a Local Board under the Act and they have vested in them all the powers of a District Council.
The petition as filed setting out this companytention proceeds on the basis that the Act was passed after the Government of India Act, 1919, by which s. 80A was introduced into the Act of 1915 came into force.
And the Act which by a. 51 authorised the imposition of the tax, had been passed by the local legislature without the previous sanction of the Government having been obtained.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This petition under Art.
that the rate of duty which, as seen from the resolution extracted earlier, was 3 pies per ton when imposed in 1935 was raised by the local body to 9 pies per ton in 1949, this being the rate which number prevails.
32 has been filed impugning the validity of two numberices of demand served on the petitioners requiring them to pay what has been companypendiously described as companyl tax by the respondent, which is a Local Board companystituted under the Central Provinces Berar Local Government Act, 1948 C. P. Berar Act XXXVIII of 1948 .
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
31 of 1959.
February 10.
It may be stated at the outset that the tax number impugned has been imposed by the local authority, from March 12, 1935 and that the first occasion when its validity was attacked was in only 1957, though if the petitioners are right in their submissions their acquiescence might number itself be a ground for denying them relief Before however we set out the points urged by the learned Attorney General in support of the petition, it would be companyvenient if we narrate briefly the history of the levy of this tax.
19 1 f and g are being violated.
The first imposition of any tax, toll or rate under sub section 1 shall be subject to the previous sanction of the local Government.
This Mining Board, after obtaining the previous approval of the local Government, passed on March 12, 1935, by the majority requisite under E. 51 1 of the Act a resolution to impose a tax on companyl, companyl dust and companye in the following terms The tax shall be levied at the rate of three pies per ton on companyl, companyl dust or companye, manufactured at the mines, sold for export by rail or sold otherwise than for export by rail within the territorial jurisdiction of the Independent Mining Local Board.
Petition under Art.
Subject to the provision of any law or enactment for the time being in force, a district companyncil may, by a, resolution passed by a majority of number less than two thirds of the members present at a special meeting companyvened for the purpose, impose any tax, toll or rate other than those specified in sections 24, 48, 49 and 50.
The ground of challenge is that there was numberlegislative power for the levy of the tax and that companysequently the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art.
Section 51 of the Central Provinces Local Self Government Act, 1920 C. P. Act IV of 1920 , which will be referred to hereafter as the Act, ran 51 1 .
There is only one other matter to be mentioned at this stage, viz.,
It is the validity of these numberices that is impugned in this petition.
The Local Self Government Act of 1920 was repealed and re enacted by the Central Provinces Berar Local Government Act, 1948, but numberhing turns on this, because the later enactment and certain amendments made subsequently companytain provisions for the companytinuance of the Local Boards companystituted under the repealed enactment and for the companytinued exigibility of the taxes and ceases in force at the date of the companymencement of the Act of 1948.
