9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "current official year" in Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. 2. Retrospective effect of amendments in the assessment list. 3. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness in tax recovery. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of "current official year" in Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925: The primary issue was the interpretation of the term "current official year" in Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The court had to determine whether "current official year" referred to the year when the amendment in the assessment list was made or if it could include previous years. The court concluded that "current official year" means the official year that is running when the amendment to the assessment list is made. The court emphasized that the expression refers only to the official year in progress at the time of the amendment. This interpretation was supported by the context and the wording of the statute, which did not include any reference to past years. 2. Retrospective effect of amendments in the assessment list: The court addressed whether an alteration in the assessment list could have a retrospective effect, allowing the municipality to levy taxes for previous years. The court held that the amendment to the assessment list could not have a retrospective effect for previous years. It was determined that the alteration becomes effective from the commencement of the official year in which it is made. The court reasoned that the liability to pay the enhanced tax arises only in the current official year when the amendment is made, and not for any past years. This conclusion was drawn from the language of Section 82(3), which specifies that the tax shall be levied in the proportion which the remainder of the year after such day bears to the whole year, indicating that it applies only to the current year. 3. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness in tax recovery: The court examined whether the municipality could recover taxes with retrospective effect and whether the procedural requirements were met. The court found that the municipality could not recover taxes with retrospective effect for the years prior to the amendment. The liability to tax arises only after the objections are heard and the assessment list is authenticated. In this case, the objections were disposed of on March 28, 1964, and the amendment was assumed to be made on the same date. Therefore, the liability to pay the enhanced tax could only arise from the official year 1964-65 onwards. The court also addressed the procedural correctness, noting that the municipality had not issued a fresh notice for the year 1964-65, rendering the assessment for that year illegal. The court emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements laid out in Sections 80 and 81 of the Act, which include the publication of the assessment list, inviting objections, and authenticating the list. Conclusion: The court resolved the issues by interpreting "current official year" as the year in progress when the amendment is made, rejecting the retrospective application of the amendment, and emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness in tax recovery. The court answered the questions framed as follows: - Question (i) in the negative. - Question (ii) in the affirmative. The papers were sent back to the Division Bench for the disposal of the Revision Application.
|
