9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (9) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue of a writ of certiorari under the provisions of article 226 of the Constitution. The appeal raises the question of the validity of the assessment of a tax on the appellant for the year 1950-51 by the Town Area Committee of Karbal under the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 (U. P. Act II of 1914), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appellant resides in the town of Mainpuri and carries on the business of plying a motor bus on hire. The appellant s bus plies on. alternate days between Etawah and. Mainpuri, and the town of Karhal falls on the route between Etawah and Mainpuri. . It is not now disputed that passengers travelling in the appellant s bus used to get down or get in at a bus stand within the town area of Karhal; the appellant had a booking office situate within the Town Area and tickets were issued to passengers and an account of the business was maintained in the said booking office. The Town Area Committee of Karhal imposed a tax of Rs. 25 on the appellant for the year 1950-51 under the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act, being a tax on circumstances and prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing authority having assessed a tax on the appellant under clause (f), it was not open to the High Court to say that the tax was legally valid under a different clause, namely clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 14. With regard to his second point, learned counsel has drawn our attention to sections 15 to 17 of the Act. He has pointed out that under section 15 of the Act a list of persons liable to pay the tax imposed under section 14 and of the amounts to be paid respectively by such persons, has to be prepared; the list may be revised by the District Magistrate and has to be submitted to him for confirmation. When so confirmed., the list can only be altered under subsection (2) of section 15 by the District Magistrate or in pursuance of an order passed in appeal under the provisions of section 18. We think that learned counsel has rightly submitted that, so far as the present appellant is concerned, the list prepared under section 15 must have shown him as assessed to a certain amount of tax under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 14 and the assessment must have been confirmed on that basis by the District Magistrate. Therefore, the legality of the tax imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of that count on which he is not assessed. 3. (1) The tax assessed on the circumstances of an assessee may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business within the limits of the town area: Provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year of assessment. (2) No tax shall be imposed on any person whose total taxable income is less than Rs. 200 per annum. (3) The rate of the tax shall not exceed one anna in a. rupee on total taxable income. (4) The total amount of tax assessed on any person shall not, in any year, exceed a sum of s. 250. Explanation.-(1) For purposes of this rule taxable income means gross income accruing within the limits of the town area. (ii) The words carrying on business mean the carrying on of any trade, profession, calling or other practice or activity which yields or is capable of yielding income but do not include service under Government or a local body". The important point which emerges out of these Rules is that under Rule 3 the tax assessed on the circumstances of an assessee may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business within the limits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Area. Therefore, the proviso was necessary to prevent the same person being taxed more than once under the different clauses of sub-section (1) of section 14. If residence within the limits of the Town Area were a sine qua non for the imposition of a tax under clause (f), no question of overlapping between clauses (d) and (f) would arise unless the person to be taxed resided as well as carried on a trade within the limits of the Town Area. If the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is correct, then the proviso to clause (f) is meaningless in so far as it envisages an overlapping between clause (d) and clause (f) in other cases. On a proper construction of clause (f), read with the limitations and restrictions embodied in the Rules made under section 39 of the Act, it cannot be held that residence within the Town Area of Karbal was a necessary condition for the imposition of the tax on the appellant. A reference, was made to sub.;section (4) of section 15-A of the Act. Section 15-A provides for preliminary proposals for the imposition of taxes under section 14, publication of such proposals and the submission of draft rules. Subsection (4) states: "(4) Any, inhabitan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... District Board of Dehra Dun could impose a tax on the defendants who were not residents within the area of the District Board. It is worthy of note that under section 114 of the U. P. District - Boards Act, the power of a Board to impose a tax on circumstances and property is subject to the condition that the tax may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area within the District Board. The only question in that Allahabad case was whether the defendants resided within the rural area of the District Board so as to make them liable for the. tax. The finding Was that they did not reside within the rural area and therefore the imposition of the tax was illegal, and section 131 of the U. P. District Boards Act did not bar the suit. This decision does not help the appellant. If it shows anything, it shows that it was open to the District Board to impose a circumstances and property tax on any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area. In the 1948 Allahabad decision, the main question was whether the provisions of section 2, Professions Tax Limitation Act (20 of 1941) affected the powers conferred upon the District Board by section 108 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
