9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of resolution levying octroi under Section 98 of the City of Bangalore Corporation Act, 1949. Analysis: The judgment involved connected appeals challenging the High Court of Karnataka's decision regarding the resolution passed by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore levying octroi on certain additional items under Section 98 of the Act. The High Court declared the resolution invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 98(1), which required consideration of objections before passing the resolution. The appellant argued that objections were duly considered, and the resolution was passed unanimously after distributing notes analyzing objections. The Court emphasized that taxation must be in strict conformity with the authorizing statute and that conditions precedent must be fulfilled before delegated power is exercised. The Court discussed the importance of fulfilling conditions precedent for exercising statutory power and presumed regularity in the authority's actions. It highlighted that the legislative body must ascertain local opinion before imposing taxes, assuming that objections were considered before reaching a decision. The Court referenced a previous decision to support the principle that the Court should not examine the manner in which legislative will is indicated once it is clear that objections were considered. The judgment emphasized that the Court's role is to ensure compliance with statutory provisions, not to question the decision-making process. Furthermore, the Court addressed the presumption of regularity in statutory authority's actions, emphasizing that the burden lies on challengers to show non-compliance with conditions precedent. The judgment cited previous cases to support the principle that taxes must be imposed in accordance with the law to avoid infringing fundamental rights. The Court criticized the High Court for assuming non-compliance based solely on time constraints and emphasized that the term "consideration" in the statute encompasses taking note of objections. Ultimately, the Court held that the High Court erred in assuming non-compliance due to time constraints alone and set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeals without costs.
|
