1979 (3) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT

Whether persons collectively doing business in partnership, in the municipality, fulfil the second condition ?

Held that:- There are no words in cl. (b) or elsewhere in the statute which, expressly or by necessary implication, exclude or exempt persons carrying on a trade collectively in the municipality from being taxed as individuals. To attract liability to a tax under this clause, it is sufficient that the person concerned is carrying on a trade in the municipality, irrespective of whether such trade is being carried on by him individually or in partnership with others. Thus, both the conditions necessary for levying a tax under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 61 of the Municipal Act existed in this case. The appellants are " persons " and they are carrying on a trade in Chheharta Municipality.

the entire effort to import the definition of " person " given in the General Clauses Act, into s. 61(1)(b) of the Municipal Act, is directed to find a foundation for the argument, that the construction adopted by the High Court could lead to double taxation and even unconstitutional results. But in the instant case, nothing of this kind has happened. The firm has not been assessed. No question of double taxation or exceeding the constitutional ceiling of ₹ 250 fixed by art. 276(2) of the Constitution arises on the facts of the present case.

The present case is one, where the Municipal Committee acted " under the Act ". It follows, therefore, that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit was barred, even if the dispute raised therein related to the principle of assessment to be followed. Appeal dismissed.