9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of the Borough Municipalities (Validation of Certain Taxes on Buildings and Lands) Act, 1965 under Article 14 of the Constitution for levying house tax on mills, factories, and buildings. Validity of Rule 2(c) for imposing house tax. Retroactive validation of tax levy under the Validating Act. Analysis: 1. The respondents filed writ petitions challenging the Borough Municipalities (Validation of Certain Taxes on Buildings and Lands) Act, 1965, claiming it violated their fundamental rights under Article 14. The High Court held certain sections of the Validating Act invalid and restrained the appellant-Municipality from levying house tax. The appeals were directed against this judgment. 2. The appellant-Municipality previously levied house tax on mills, factories, and buildings based on annual letting value until 1947. Rule 2(c) was introduced in 1947, fixing a uniform rate of tax per square foot of floor area for mills and factories. This rule was challenged, and the Supreme Court in a previous case held it ultra vires the Boroughs Act. 3. The Validating Act aimed to enable municipalities to levy house tax based on Rule 2(c) and validate past tax collections. Amendments in the Validating Act included changes to the basis of valuation for tax on buildings or lands, with retrospective effect from the commencement of the Boroughs Act. 4. The main issues were whether Rule 2(c) could be used for house tax imposition and if it could be retroactively validated. The Supreme Court previously struck down Rule 2(c) as it deviated from authorized valuation methods. The Municipality did not introduce any new rule post this decision. 5. The Court found that without a valid charging provision like Rule 2(c), no house tax could be imposed on mills, factories, or connected buildings. The Validating Act did not revive Rule 2(c, leaving no basis for tax imposition. Section 4 did not resurrect Rule 2(c) retroactively, and the Court refrained from deciding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections. 6. The Court dismissed the appeals, noting that the High Court need not have struck down the provisions of the Validating Act. Since Rule 2(c) was already inoperative, the relief could have been granted without invalidating the sections. The Court emphasized avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions when cases can be resolved on other grounds.
|
