1970 (7) TMI 5 - HC - Wealth-tax

Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - assessee was previously the ruler of a Native State called the Banaras State - agreement between the Governor-General of India and the assessee - agreement of merger - as per agreement ruler is exempted from all taxation in respect of property - held that value of palace was rightly included in the net wealth of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption claim based on merger agreement and letter of assurance.
Applicability of specific exemptions under Wealth-tax Act.
Consideration of personal rights and privileges of a ruler under the Constitution.

Interpretation of Exemption Claim:
The judgment pertains to a reference made under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act regarding the assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60. The issue revolves around the exemption claim made by the assessee concerning the inclusion of the "Nandeswar House" in the net wealth assessment. The assessee argued that the claim was based on the agreement for merger dated 5th September 1949, between the assessee and the Governor-General of India, as clarified by a subsequent letter. The letter conveyed assurances that the assessee would be exempt from "all property or other municipal taxation." The assessee contended that wealth tax falls under this exemption based on the agreement and letter. Additionally, the assessee invoked articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution to preserve personal rights and privileges. However, the revenue department argued that exemptions must align with the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, specifically section 5(1)(iii) regarding the official residence declaration by the Central Government. The Tribunal sided with the revenue, rejecting the exemption claim for the "Nandeswar House."

Applicability of Specific Exemptions:
The judgment draws a parallel with a similar case involving the Nawab of Rampur, where the Full Bench held that merger agreements cannot be enforced as law. The court emphasized that only exemptions specified in the Wealth-tax Act's section 5 could be allowed. Under section 5(1)(iii), rulers are entitled to exemption for one building declared as the official residence. As the Wealth-tax Officer had already granted such exemption for the "Ramnagar Palace," the assessee was not entitled to exemption for the "Nandeswar House." The court reiterated that the immunity from property or municipal taxes granted by the merger agreement is not legally enforceable.

Consideration of Personal Rights and Privileges:
The judgment underscores that personal rights and privileges of a ruler under the Constitution do not extend to immunity from wealth tax unless specifically provided for in the Wealth-tax Act. The court emphasized that the terms of the merger agreement and letter of assurance cannot be considered as enforceable laws in the context of tax assessments. Ultimately, the court answered the reference question in the affirmative against the assessee, highlighting that only statutory exemptions under the Wealth-tax Act are applicable, not general assurances from merger agreements.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that tax exemptions for rulers are limited to those explicitly outlined in the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of statutory provisions over general agreements or assurances.