1967 (7) TMI 131 - SC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sections 119 and 120 of the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922.
2. Validity of levying tax without a resolution under Section 119 and a notification under Section 120.
3. Maintainability of a writ petition challenging post-Constitution actions.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in relation to Section 128 appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved the interpretation of Sections 119 and 120 of the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922, concerning the imposition of taxes. The High Court held that without a special resolution under Section 119 and a notification under Section 120, no tax could be levied in pursuance of the notifications issued by the District Board. The purpose of these sections is to fix the date from which the tax can be imposed, and the imposition of tax is deemed to occur upon notification under Section 120, not just by issuing a notification under Section 118.

2. The validity of levying tax without following the prescribed procedure of passing a resolution under Section 119 and issuing a notification under Section 120 was a central issue. The court emphasized that the resolution and notification were essential to impose taxes in accordance with the Act. The argument that rules made under Section 172 and Section 176 were sufficient was dismissed, highlighting the importance of fixing a specific date for tax imposition through the process outlined in Sections 119 and 120.

3. The court addressed the maintainability of a writ petition challenging post-Constitution actions related to taxation. It was clarified that the petitioner was contesting current tax charges based on the absence of legal authority, not challenging pre-Constitution matters. The respondent's right not to be taxed except under the authority of law, as per Article 265 of the Constitution, was upheld.

4. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was discussed concerning appeals under Section 128 of the Act. The court affirmed that provisions like Section 128 do not preclude the High Court from entertaining petitions under Article 226. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner should have appealed under Section 128, emphasizing the discretionary power of the High Court to decide on the maintainability of petitions.

In conclusion, the appeal challenging the High Court's judgment was dismissed, affirming the necessity of following the prescribed procedures under Sections 119 and 120 for levying taxes and upholding the High Court's decision on the maintainability of the writ petition.