9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted. The Government Order impugned before the High Court has been covered and validated by the above provisions, the Government Order itself covered the period after the repeal of the old Act and till the date of commencement of the Fourth Amendment, so that no interregnum was really there. The assessment made according to the provisions of the old Act was validated as actions taken by the Council pursuant to the impugned Government Order and not under the provisions of the old Act which was already repealed. While referring to the old Act, the Government Order did not revive the Act but only prescribed the same procedure as was found in the repealed Act as a transitory measure. The validity of section 4(1) of the Fourth Amendment Act having not been challenged before the High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgments of the High Court. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 11-9-1990 - Judge(s) : K. N. SAIKIA., SABYASACHI MUKHERJEE JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by K. N. SAIKIA J. -This appeal by special leave is from the common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing two writ appeals and a writ petition. The Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revision could not be completed before April 1, 1970, and the Government, therefore, issued G.O. Ms. No. 293 M. A. dated April 18, 1970, directing the Municipal Councils to levy the property tax as per the provisions of the new Act from October 1, 1970. By another G. O. Ms. No. 81 M. A. dated January 30, 1971, the Government directed the Municipal Council of Vijayawada to continue to levy the property tax under the provisions of the old Act as certain rate payers had filed writ petitions in the High Court and obtained stay. However, by G. O. Ms. No. 675 M. A., G. O. Ms. No. 81 was rescinded and the Vijayawada Municipal Council was directed to collect revised taxes under the provisions of the new Act with effect from October 1, 1970. This latter G. O. Ms. No. 675 was in its turn rescinded by G. O. Ms. No. 255 M. A. dated June 15, 1973, whereby the Government ordered that the Vijayawada Municipal Council shall continue to levy the property tax under the provisions of the old Act and that Government Order was to be deemed to have come into force from October 1, 1970. As a result, the Vijayawada Municipality continued to levy and enhance the property tax under the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and enhancement could be done according to the procedure contained in Schedule VII, rule 10 of the old Act. It was not denied that special notice as required under the old Act was given. The writ petitions were, accordingly, dismissed. Two writ appeals were filed by the writ petitioners. Another writ petition having raised identical questions was heard with the two appeals by the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the finding of the single Bench that having already given directions by the General Orders under the transitory provision of Schedule IX, rule 12, the Government's power under that provision ceased and it had no power to rescind that order and direct that the taxes which were levied under the old Act must be continued to be collected was not challenged before it. The Division Bench held that the Fourth Amendment Act had entrusted to the Municipal Councils the power to tax under the old Act, though that Act had been repealed. It held that though the actions of the Vijayawada Municipal Council pursuant to the General Order might have been invalid, those were validated by section 4(1) of the Fourth Amendment Act. It was also held that the appellants could pursue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne 15, 1973, having directed the taxes to be levied and collected in accordance with the old Act, there was no infirmity in the judgments of the High Court. It appears that, after the writ petitions were filed challenging G. 0. Ms. No. 255 dated June 15, 1973, the Government issued the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance 1 of 1975), which became the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1975, which was deemed to have come into force on June 10, 1975. By the said Amendment Act, not only sections 85 and 87 of the new Act were amended but also certain intervening actions of the Municipal Council were sought to be validated. Section 85 dealt with levy of tax and subsection (1) thereof said : "Where the council, by resolution, determines that a property tax shall be levied, such tax shall be levied on all buildings and lands within the municipal limits save those exempted by or under this Act or any other law. " Sub-section (2) provided: "Save as otherwise provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of sections 81 and 87 and in accordance with the rules made by the Government in this behalf, these taxes shall be levied. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for repairs or on any other account whatever : Provided that in respect of any building and the land appurtenant thereto, the fair rent of which has been fixed under section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the gross annual rent shall be the annual amount of the fair rent so fixed." Section 4 of the Fourth Amendment Act sought to validate the actions taken earlier by providing as under : " 4(1) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of the principal Act or any order of the Government made under rule 12 in Schedule IX to the principal Act, any action taken till the commencement of this Act by any municipal council to continue to levy and collect the property tax in accordance with the method or manner of assessment or levy as provided in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920, or the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956, as the case may be, shall not be deemed to be invalid or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that such action was taken by the said municipal council during the period when the power in this behalf had not been validly entrusted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment or levy as provided in the old Act and those acts shall not be deemed to be invalid or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that such action was taken by the said Municipal Council during the period when the power in this behalf had not been validly entrusted to it in accordance with the provisions of the new Act or the rules made thereunder and that the levy and collection of property tax made, in pursuance of such action, shall for all purposes be deemed to be, and to have always been, made in accordance with law. From the above provisions of section 4(1) of the Fourth Amendment Act, there is no doubt that the Legislature intended to validate the actions taken under the general orders and under the old as well as the new Act. It may be interpreted that the impugned Government Order having been validated, the tenure covered by it must also be held to have been covered by it, so that there was really no interregnum in the process or procedure of assessment of property tax. Mr. Subba Rao relies on Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. [1970] 3 SCR 745. In that case, in 1935, the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara constituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment must be deemed to have been issued validly. It was held that such an intendment could not be implied without express language, in a taxing statute. It was further observed that it was open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been. But the Legislature, in that case, attempted to overrule or set aside a decision of the court. It was not open to the Legislature to say that a judgment of a court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective either as a precedent or between the parties. That case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable from the instant case on facts. Firstly, in the instant case, there is no question of any judgment of any court having been overruled or set aside. The single Bench judgment was passed on March 23, 1976, that is, after the Amendment Act which came into force on June 10, 1975. Secondly, the language of section 4(1) is very clear as to the intention of the Legislature as to the contents of the amendment. What the amendment in the instant case did was to amend the new Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also be regularised with retrospective effect within the same constitutional limitations. Where the court has not already declared invalid a taxing measure which was of doubtful validity, it is permissible for the appropriate Legislature to validate it by retrospective legislation. No legal fiction is involved in such a case. Mr. Subba Rao's submission has, therefore, to be rejected. We find force in the submission of Mr. Nambiar in this regard. The Government Order impugned before the High Court has been covered and validated by the above provisions, the Government Order itself covered the period after the repeal of the old Act and till the date of commencement of the Fourth Amendment, so that no interregnum was really there. The assessment made according to the provisions of the old Act was validated as actions taken by the Council pursuant to the impugned Government Order and not under the provisions of the old Act which was already repealed. While referring to the old Act, the Government Order did not revive the Act but only prescribed the same procedure as was found in the repealed Act as a transitory measure. The validity of section 4(1) of the Fourth Amendment Act havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
