The appeal filed by the Committee against that judgment was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Mainpuri, but in Second Appeal 2859 of 1966, the High Court of Allahabad by its judgment dated November 29, 1972, took a companytrary view, allowed the Committees appeal and directed the dismissal of the appellants suit.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29 11 72 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23 5 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga, Ashoke Srivastava and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant in C.A. No.
1528/70.
In 1961, the U. P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 33 of 1961, was passed.
The Ordinance was repealed by the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act 1958.
The learned Single Judge who decided the Second Appeal, followed the Full Bench decisions of the High Court in i M s R. R. Engineering Co. which has given rise to the companypanion appeal herein, namely, Civil Appeal 1528 of 1970, and ii The Notified Area Committee Anr.
The appellant having been assessed to a tax of Rs.
2,000/ for the year 1965 66, filed Writ Petition 37 of 1967 in the High Court of Allahabad to challenge the companystitutional validity of that tax.
C. Agarwala for the Appellant in C.A. 564/73.
P. Goyal and S. K. Jain for the Respondent in C.A. 564/73.
In Civil Appeal 564 of 1973, appellants who are residents of Kuraoli, District Mainpuri, were assessed to Circumstances and Property Tax by the Town Area Committee of Kuraoli, for the years 1961 64.
C. Agarwala and M. M. L. Srivastava for the Respondent in C.A. 1528/70.
The appellants registered office which was situated within the jurisdiction of the District Board of Bareilly is number within the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad, Bareilly.
The appellants filed a suit, 62 of 1964, to challenge the validity of the tax.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. These are two appeals from Uttar Pradesh involving the validity of a levy which bears the somewhat unusual name of Circumstances and Property Tax.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
37/67 AND Civil Appeal No.
That suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Munsir, on the ground that the tax on circumstances and property was in truth and substance a tax on income and since, prior to the Constitution, it was number lawful for the Town Area Committee to levy it, it was number saved by Article 277 of the Constitution.
2,000/ on any single assessee.
By section 274 of that Act, the P. District Boards Act, 1922, was repealed as from the date Kshetra Samitis were established in a District, and the P. Antarim Zila Parishads Act was repealed as from the date on which the Zila Parishad was established in a District.
The tax was levied by the Committee under section 14 f of the U.P. Town Area Act, 1914, as amended by the U.P. Town Area Validation and Amendment Act, 1950, which empowers the Town Area Committees to impose a tax on persons according to their circumstances and property, number exceeding such rate and subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed.
The powers and functions of District Boards were vested in or were transferred to the Antarim Zila Parishads and from them to the Zila Parishads on their establishment in the District.
The Circumstances and Property Tax which was being levied by the District Board of Bareilly is number being levied by the Zila Parishad of Bareilly.
Its registered office is situated at Clutterbuckganj which was at one time within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Board of Bareilly.
A learned single Judge referred the Petition to a Division Bench which in turn referred it to a Full Bench.
Writ No.
Civil Appeal 1528 of 1970 is by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court under Articles 132 1 and 133 1 c of the Constitution while Civil Appeal 564 of 1973 is by Special Leave granted by this Court.
564 of 1973.
The facts leading to Civil Appeal 1528 of 1970 are as follows The appellant M s. R. R. Engineering Company is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of machinery, machine tools and as structural engineers.
Later by a Notification dated November 29, 1933 the State Government directed under section 114 d of the Act that the total amount of tax on circumstances and property imposed by a District Board on any single assessee shall number in any year exceed the sum of Rs.
1528 of 1970.
2359 of 1966.
vs. Sri Ram Singhasan Prasad Kalwar.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal by Special Leave of this Court.
