9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (2) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H, M., SHAH, J.C. AND SIKRI, S.M., JJ. D.N. Mukherjee, for the appellant Naunit Lal, for the respondent JUDGMENT Wanchoo, J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Assam High Court raises the question of the constitutionality of an annual tax levied by local boards for the use of any land for the purpose of holding markets as provided by s. 62 of the Assam Local Self- Government Act, No. XXV of 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant is a landholder in the district of i Kamrup. As such landholder, he holds a hat or market on his land since the year 1936 and this market is known as Kharma hat. In 1953-54, the local board of Barpeta, within whose jurisdiction the Kharma market is held, issued notice to the appellant to take out a licence and pay ₹ 600/- for the year 1953-54 as licence-fee for holding the market. Later this sum was increased to ₹ 700/- for the year 1955-56. The appellant continued .protesting against this levy but no heed was paid to his protests and the amount was sought to be recovered by issue of distress warrants and attachment of his property. Consequently, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollows therefore that the use to which the land is put can be taken into account in imposing a tax on it within the meaning of entry 49 of List II, for the annual value of land which can certainly be taken into account in imposing a tax for the purpose of this entry would necessarily depend upon the use to which the land is put. It is in the light of this settled proposition that we have to examine the scheme of s. 62 of the Act, which imposes the tax under challenge. It is necessary therefore to analyse the scheme of s. 62 which provides for this tax. Section 62(1) inter alia lays down that the local board may order that no land shall be used as a market otherwise than under a licence to be granted by the board. Sub-section (2) of s. 62 is the charging provision and may be quoted in full: On the issue of an order as in sub-section (1), the board at a meeting may grant within the local limits of its jurisdiction a licence for the use of any land as a market and impose an annual tax thereon and such conditions as prescribed by rules. Sub-section (3) provides that when it has been determined that a tax shall be imposed under the preceding sub-section, the local board shall ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o has to take out the licence for its use as a market.The form of the tax i.e. its being an annual tax as contrasted to a tax for each day on which the market is held also shows that in essence the tax is on land and not on the market held thereon.Further the tax is not imposed on any transactions in the market by persons who come there for business which again shows that it is an impost on land and not on the market i.e. on the business terein. Then sub-s (5) provides that the tax shall be paid by the owner of any land used as a market which again shows that it is on the land that the tax is levied, though the charge arises when it is used as a market. Sub-section (6) then lays down that on receiving the amount so fixed the board shall issue a licence to the person paying the same. Here again the license is for the rise of the land. Then comes sub-s. (8) which provides that wherever. being the wner or occupier of any land uses or permits the same to be used as a market without a licence shall be liable to fine. This provision clearly shows that the tax is on the land and it is the owner or occupier of the kind who is responsible and is liable to prosecution if he fails to take cut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Then we come to the contention under Art. 14 of the Constitution. As to that it is well-settled that it is for the person who alleges that equality before law has been infringed to show that such really is the case. It was therefore for the appellant to produce facts and figures from which it can be inferred that the tax imposed in the present case is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. In that connection, all that the appellant has stated in his writ petition is that the board fixed a high rate arbitrarily and thus discriminated against the appellant's market as against the other neighbouring markets where the tax had been fixed at a much lower rate, and that this was hit by Art. 14. There was certainly an allegation by the appellant that Art. 14 had been infringed; but that allegation is vague and gives no facts and figures for holding that the tax imposed on the Kharma market was discriminatory. It appears that the tax was imposed for the year 1953-54. which was continued Inter on, with some modifications. At that time there were five markets on which the tax was imposed including the Kharma market. The lowest tax was at ₹ 400/- on two markets, then at ₹ 500/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
