9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and validity of Section 152A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 2. Constitutionality of Section 152A. 3. Constitutionality of Sub-section (3) of Section 152A introduced by the Ordinance. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation and Validity of Section 152A: The judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 152A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, as amended by the Gujarat State. The Supreme Court agrees with the High Court that Section 152A does not empower the Corporation to retain amounts illegally collected as property tax. The section allows the Corporation to reassess properties for previous years based on amended rules but mandates that any excess amount collected must be refunded with interest. The Court emphasizes that before the Corporation can retain any amount, there must be a lawful assessment. The provision allows for reassessment and collection of taxes in accordance with the amended Act, but any excess collection must be refunded with interest. 2. Constitutionality of Section 152A: Given the conclusion that Section 152A does not authorize the Corporation to retain illegally collected amounts, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to examine the constitutionality of the section. The section's interpretation ensures that any excess collection beyond the lawful assessment must be refunded, aligning with constitutional principles. 3. Constitutionality of Sub-section (3) of Section 152A: The judgment critically examines Sub-section (3) of Section 152A, introduced by the Ordinance, which allows the Corporation to withhold refunds of illegally collected taxes until reassessment is completed. The Court finds this provision to be "a strange provision" that attempts to command the Corporation to disobey judicial orders, which is impermissible. The Court states that while legislatures can amend laws retrospectively to remove the basis of a judicial decision, they cannot instruct state instrumentalities to disregard court orders. The provision is deemed to make a direct inroad into judicial powers, violating the constitutional separation of powers. The Court cites several precedents, including Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Mehal Chand Sethia, to underscore that legislatures cannot invalidate judicial decisions or command disobedience to them. Consequently, Sub-section (3) of Section 152A is struck down as unconstitutional. The Court also notes that the provision effectively authorizes the collection of forced loans, which is impermissible under the Constitution. Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed, and the writ petitions are allowed. Section 152A(3) is struck down, and the petitioners are entitled to their costs. The judgment reaffirms the principle that legislative powers do not extend to overriding judicial decisions or authorizing state instrumentalities to disobey court orders.
|
