TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was caused thereto by the Amending Act No. 15 of 1973 bringing about drastic changes in the Act, of far reaching consequences. By virtue of this Amendment Act, tax was sought to be levied or imposed upon both lands and buildings in the urban areas of the State of Rajasthan. The Principal Act and the Amending Act were made enforceable with effect from April 1 l973. A private corporation challenged the constitutional validity of the Act as amended, in the High Court of Rajasthan. The State Government perhaps realizing the flaws in the Amending Act No. 15 of 1973, had the Governor of the State issue on June 23, 1973, an Ordinance No. 6 of 1973 bringing about corrective changes in the provisions, (reference to which will be made later) which Ordinance was replaced by the Amending Act No. 18 of 1973, which came into force on November 10, 1973 but effective from l-4-73. The rates of tax as applicable with effect from April 1, 1973 were changed subsequently by the Rajasthan Finance Act of 1977 (Act No.2 of 1977) causing necessary amendments in the charging section of the Principal Act. Section 3 of the Principal Act, as it was originally enacted, reads as under: 3. Levy of Urban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or is constituted a municipality. Provided also that where more than one land or building in the same urban area is owned by the same Person, the land and building tax shall be assessed on the market value of all such lands and building taken together. (2) The tax shall be in addition to any other tax for the time being payable in respect of the land and building or portion thereof under any other law for the time being in force. By Amending Ordinance VI of 1973, which was later replaced by Amending Act No.18 of 1973, the last proviso to subsection (1) of Section 3 was omitted and it was provided that the same shall be deemed always to have been omitted and the following sub-section (1)A was inserted retrospectively after sub-section ((1) of Section 3. (1)A - For removal of doubt it is declared that the tax shall be levied on land or building or both separately as units. Section 4 of the Principal Act, as it was originally enacted in the year 1964, was under: 4. Determination of market value: (1) The Assessing Authority shall determine in the prescribed manner the market value of the urban land liable to be taxed under this Act. (2) The Assessing Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were dismissed and as a consequence the writ petitions were dismissed in their entirety. Thus on granting leave in the present batch of appeals before us, the only question raised by learned counsel and regarding which written submissions have been submitted to us is whether or not the Principal Act No.18 of 1964 was by itself invalid, more so after its amendment by Amending Act No. 15 of 1973 rendering it further void because it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The argument is that since levy of tax on all lands and buildings of a person taken together under the charging sections 3 and 4 in the enacted provisions were outsides the legislative competence of the State Legislature, the entire measure was a piece of still-born legislation, incapable, because inseperatability of being enlivened after its amendment by the Amending Ordinance No. 6 of 1973 and the subsequent Amending Act 13 of 1973. The view of the learned Single Judge was that the Principal Act as enacted in 1964 was a valid piece of legislation and was fully covered by Entry 49, List II as it stood in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge was further of the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to another tax as a component of the total assets of the person concerned. See in this connection, a seven member Bench decision of this Court in Union of India vs. H.S. Dhillon [1972(2) SCR 33]. This Court clearly said that for a tax to be under Entry 49 of List II, three conditions must be satisfied, i.e. (i) it must be a tax on units i.e., land and buildings separately as units; (ii) the tax cannot be a tax on totality i.e., it is not a composite tax on the value of all lands and buildings; and (iii) the tax is not concerned with the division of interest in the building or land; in another words, the tax was not concerned whether one person owned or occupied the land or building or two or more persons occupy or own it. In pith and substance, it was a tax on property and not a personnel tax. Other cases of the same nature being D.C. Gouse Co. etc. vs. State of Kerala Anr. etc. [1980(1) SCR 268], which are of the same species, may be turned to with advantage. B. Shama Rao vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry [1967(2) SCR 650], pressed into service by learned counsel for the appellants, which was a case under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, enlightens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es it is clear that the charging section 3, which to begin with was unquestionably valid, was replaced with the amendment made by Amending Act 15 of 1973, making it in that state unenforceable, but when the unhealthy part was removed by Ordinance 6 of 1973. Amending Act 18 of 1973, Sections 3 and 4 got resuscitated, gaining radiatance, pristinely legislative, its sparkle re-doubled by insertion of Subsection (1) A to Section 3, so as to remove doubts ever existing regarding levy of tax on buildings and lands. Thus it must be held that the charging Section 3 and the supportive Section 4, as salvaged, are part of a scheme which was within the legislative competence of the Rajasthan State Legislature. The afore-analysis also demolishes the stillborn theory because the Principal Act was by itself a measure existing on the statute book which had life and breath of its own, irrespective of the date of its enforceability having been kept for a future date. It is the Amending Act No.15 of l973 which got to choke its life but before it could die or be declared dead by a court to competent jurisdiction, life was breathed into it by the Amending Ordinance 6 of 1973 and Amending Act 18 of 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
