TMI Blog1975 (5) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture of special apparatus machines, presses etc. The construction of the factory began in 1964 and was completed in December 1965. The factory was constructed without the permission of the Gram Panchayat. Considering the skeleton staff which mans the Panchayat and its skeleton activities, the respondent s plea that it did not obtain the Panchayat s permission bemuse it was not aware of its existence is not implausible. But such awareness has no relevance on the respondent s liability to pay taxes and fees. In any event, on coming to know of the construction of the factory and the other buildings the Panchayat asked the respondent to obtain the requisite permission. The respondent asked for ex-postfacto permission in January, 1967. In its meeting of May 8, 1967 the Panchayat passed a resolution for collecting Permission Fee from the respondent at 1/2% on the capital value of the factory buildings and at 1% on the capital value of other buildings. By a letter dated August 20, 1968 the Panchayat called upon the respondent to pay house-tax for the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 amounting to ₹ 1,83,750 at the rate of ₹ 61,250 per annum. On March 3, 1969 the Panch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f house as contained in the unamended section 2(15). Section 2 of the Amending Act provides 2. For clause (15) of section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Pancbayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), the following clause shall be and shall be deemed always to have been substituted, namely :- (15) house means a building or hut fit for human occupation, whether as a residence or otherwise. and includes any shop, factory, workshop or warehouse or any building used for garaging or parking buses or as a bus-stand, cattle shed (other than a cattle shed in an agricultural land), poultry shed or dairy shed ; Section 4(a) of the Amending Act provides 4. Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority,- (a)anything done or any action taken, including any tax levied and collected, in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the principal Act shall be deemed, to be and to have always been, done or taken or leived and collected in the exercise of the powers conferred by to under the principal Act as amended by section 2 of this Act , as if the principal Act as amende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstitution of a new section 2(15) for the old section and it has provided that the new definition shall have retrospective effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority. In other words, it has removed the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court so that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. If the old section 2(15) were to define house in the manner that the amended section 2(15) does, there is doubt that the decision of the High Court would have been otherwise. In fact, it was not disputed before us that the buildings constructed by the respondent meet fully the requirements of section 2(15) as amended by the Act of 1974. In Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath v. State of U. P. (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 405), the Legislature amended the law retrospectively and thereby removed the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court of Allahabad. It was held by this Court that this was within the permissible limits and validation of the old Act by amending it retrospectively did not constitute an encroachment on the functions of the judiciary. The decisions on which the respondent relies are clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constructed by the respondent including the factory buildings. It needs to be clarified that by Rule 6 of the Rules relating to levy of House-Tax , machinery and furniture are to be excluded from consideration for the purpose of assessment to house-tax. Thus, the tax is on buildings only and does not transgress the scope of Entry 49. This clarification became necessary in view of the respondent s contention that the State legislature has no power under Entry 49, List II, to levy tax on the lands and buildings owned or occupied by a factory. Entry 36 in List III relates to Factories and Entry 47 in that List relates to Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any court . It is urged on behalf of the respondent that these specific Entries in regard to the, particular subject matter exhaust the power to impose levies on factories and since the power is limited to the imposition of fees on factories, the legislature has no competence to impose a tax on the lands or buildings of a factory. It is true that the various Entries in the legislature Lists must receive a broad and liberal construction and Entry 36 in List III may therefore co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of specific fees. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Gram Panchayats to levy fees on the permission to construct a building, which is what the second appellant has purported to do in the instant case. In fact, there is no provision in tile Act under which it is necessary to obtain the permission of the Gram Panchayat for constructing a building. Section 131(2) of the Act which authorises the levy of fees for every licence or permission is therefore not attracted. Section 125(1) requires that the permission of the Gram Panchayat must be, obtained for constructing or establishing a factory, workshop or work-place in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power or in which it is proposed to install any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by steam, water or other power as aforesaid. The provision may possibly support a levy of Permission Fee on the factory buildings, but there is no provision in the Act at all requiring the permission of. the Gram Panchayat for the construction of other buildings. Counsel for the appellants wanted to derive sustenance to the imposition of Permission Fee from the provision cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or H intended to be rendered individually to the particular person on whom the fee is imposed. The Gram Panchayat here has not even prepared an estimate of what the intended services would cost it. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Gram Panchayat lays roads for providing access to new buildings, that it provides for drainage and lights and that it scrutinises the plans submitted for intended constructions and, if necessary, it advises the applicants in order that the proposed construction may conform to the regulations. We are unable to accept that these services are rendered individually to the respondent. The laying of roads and drainage or the supply of street-lights are a statutory function of public authorities and it is difficult to hold, in the absence of any material, that any of such services as have been mentioned to us have in fact been rendered to the respondent. The very circumstance that the Permission Fee is levied at a certain percentage of the capital value of the buildings shows that the Gram Panchayat itself never intended to correlate the fee with the services rendered or intended to be rendered by it. There is therefore no warrant for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
