TMI Blog1902 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of a fee which should not exceed the following rates: Timber ₹ 5 per ton; firewood Re. 0-6-0 per ton. 3. There is nothing in the section to limit the liability of Government timber, though exemptions in favour of Government are found in several other sections of the Act. The prima facie inference is that the Legislature intended to make the section applicable to such timber. The learned Advocate-General, however, contests this inference, and contends that the conviction is bad on three grounds, viz.: 1. Because the Magistrate ought to have held that the provisions of Section 341 as to taking out a license for importing wood are merely ancillary to the provisions of Section 338 as to taking out a license for storing wood and that the exemption in favour of Government in Section 338 applies also to Section 341. 2. Because, if as held by the Magistrate, the license fee leviable under Section 341 is to be treated as a tax on importation it amounts to a toll, and Government property is expressly exempted by Section 174 from payment of tolls. 3. Because the Crown is not bound by the taxing provisions of a Statute unless there be express words to bind it, or in the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unless there be express words to bind the Crown, or in the absence of express words, unless the inference that it was intended to bind the Crown, is manifest and irresistible, and that such intention is not to be found in the City of Madras Municipal Act. He contended that no intention to render the Crown liable under Section 341 can properly be inferred from the fact that in other sections of the Act Government is expressly exempted from liability and he quoted a number of English cases in support of his contention. There is, no doubt, abundant authority to show that in England the Crown is by virtue of its prerogative exempt from the payment of tolls, but it is also clear from the Indian Councils Act, 1861 (24 25 Vict. cap. 67) that it is competent for the Indian Legislatures to make laws which may cut down the prerogative of the Crown in certain matters, This is clear with regard to the Governor-General in Council from Section 24 which provides that no law or regulation made by the Governor-General in Council (subject, to the power of disallowance by the Crown as hereinbefore provided) shall be deemed invalid by reason only that it affects the prerogatives of the Crown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Act. Under Section 42 the Governor in Council of this Presidency may make laws and regulations for the peace and good government of the Presidency provided they shall not affect any of the provisions of this Act or of any other Act of Parliament in force or hereafter to ho in force in such Presidency. Section 43 then specifies certain matters which are not to be dealt with by the local Legislature save with the previous sanction of the Governor-General. In neither section is there any general limitation in regard to matters affecting the prerogative. The limitations imposed on the Governor-General in Council by the latter part of Section 22 must necessarily be held to apply to the subordinate Legislatures of this Presidency and of Bombay, but, subject thereto and to the restrictions imposed by Sections 42 and 43, a law passed by the Legislature of this Presidency for its peace and good government is not, in my opinion, invalid by reason only that it affects the prerogative of the Crown, The City of Madras Municipal Act is such a law, and even if the fees specified in Section 341 thereof are to be regarded as ' tolls to which the prerogative of the Crown would app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e levy by a Municipal Committee of any specified tax payable by the Secretary of State for India in Council, but provides that in such case the Secretary of State in Council shall be liable to pay to the Municipal Committee, in lieu of such tax, such sums (if any) as an officer appointed by Government may, in all the circumstances of the case, determine, to be fair and reasonable. The preamble to this Act does not allege that the imposition of a tax payable by the Secretary of State to a Municipal authority is opposed to the prerogative of the Crown. It assumes that such taxation is legal. The Act, in effect, is an acknowledgment by the supreme legislative authority in India that Municipal taxes may be legally and properly payable by the Secretary of State for India in Council. We have not been referred to a single Local or Municipal Act in which Government or the Secretary of State is expressly named as liable to taxation. If such liability did not exist or if it depended, as the Advocate-General contends that it does, on the Government being expressly named in the Statute, this Municipal Taxation Act of 1881 would have had no scope for application and would have been unnecessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment generally exempt, but buildings and land in Fort St. George, which all belong to Government, were exempt from the lighting tax, though not from the water tax. This is notable as showing that the Legislature had in mind the question of exemption of Government buildings and lands and expressly gave that exemption in part, though not generally. Military officers were not exempt from the tax on salaries, but gun carriages, ordinance carts and waggons, cavalry horses and vehicles and animals belonging to Government were exempt from the vehicle and animal taxes, and it was provided that no tolls should be paid for the passage of troops, Government stores, Government vehicles or animals or any other Government property. Government was also exempt from the provisions of the sections which required persons exercising certain dangerous and offensive trades, keeping stables, cart-stands, c., and places for the storage and sale of wood and other inflammable substances, to take out licenses and pay fees in respect thereof. 8. A Section (328) corresponding to Section 338 of the present City of Madras Municipal Act, existed in the Act of 1878, but it had no section corresponding to Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hyam Ayyangar, J. 10. The petitioner is the Superintendent of the Gun Carriage Factory at Madras and in his official capacity caused to be brought within the City of Madras on the 7th November 1900 and the 4th February 1901,21 logs of timber of the aggregate weight of 141 tons without obtaining a license from the Municipality of Madras, on payment of the fee prescribed by Section 341 of Madras Act I of 1884. It is admitted that the timber so brought was the property of Government and was required for the purpose of building gun carriages for His Majesty's forces and that if the same were liable to duty under Section 341, such duty will have to be paid out of the Public Indian Revenue. 11. The petitioner, having been convicted and fined by the Chief Presidency Magistrate for having brought the timber into the City without obtaining a license from the Municipality of Madras, this revision petition has been preferred for the purpose of determining whether the license prescribed by Section 341 is necessary in the case of timber brought into the City of Madras by Government. The legality of the conviction of the petitioner is questioned solely on the ground that he was not bou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Section 341 is the levy of import duty and that is entirely independent of Section 338, Incidentally, no doubt, provision is made in Section 341 in view to check the evasion of Section 338 in cases to which that section is applicable. Timber or firewood imported by Government may or may not be stored in a place in the occupation or under the control of Government. It is impossible to connect Section 341 and Section 338 in such a way as to justify the engrafting on the former, of the exemption in favour of Government contained in the latter. exemption in favour of Govern- 13. The second ground urged proceeds upon the assumptions that the scope of Section 174 is much wider than it really is and that the duty leviable under Section 341 can be regarded as a toll. A reference to Section 98, particularly to Clause 9, shows that tolls leviable under the Act are only in respect of vehicles and animals entering the Municipal limits. Such tolls are dealt with in Sections 170--178 under the heading of tolls on animals and vehicles entering the Municipal limits and the rates of tolls and the vehicles and animals in respect of which tolls are leviable are specified in schedule D. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in the Indian Tolls (Army) Act II of 1901, Section 2 (h), which, while more comprehensive than tolls referred to as such in Madras Act I of 1884, expressly excludes customs-duties and octroi-duties or town-duties on the import of goods. 15. The learned Advocate-General bases his contention chiefly on the third ground. The substance of his argument is that the Crown is not bound to pay the duty imposed by Section 341 because Government is neither expressly nor by necessary implication included within the purview of that section; and that the express exemption of the Crown from taxes imposed under several other sections of the Act cannot legitimately lead to the necessary implication that the Crown is liable to pay taxes imposed by Section 341 and certain other sections in regard to which there is no similar exemption. The question was argued on both sides with reference to certain English and Indian decisions, in some of which it was held, that the Crown was not bound because it was not expressly named, and in others, it was bound though not expressly named. The extent to which decisions in English Courts, passed with reference to Statutes of Parliament and the prerogati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny person to the Crown of the United Kingdom or the sovereignty or dominion of the said Crown over any part of the said territories. By Section 59 of the same Statute it was provided that the Provincial Governors in Council were no longer to have the power of making laws except in case of urgent necessity and then only until the decision of the Governor-General of India in Council should be signified thereon. It will be noticed that by Section 43 the Governor-General in Council was prohibited from making any law affecting the prerogative of the Crown. This provision, however, was modified by 16 17 Vict., cap. 95, Section 26, which provided as follows: No law or regulation made by the Governor-General in Council shall be invalid by reason only that the same affects any prerogative of the Crown, provided such law or regulation shall have received the previous sanction of the Crown signified under the Royal Sign Manual of Her Majesty, countersigned by the President of the Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India. 17. When the Indian Councils Act 1861 (24 25 Vicl;., cap. 67), was pissed, Section 43 of 3 4 William IV, cap. 85 and Section 26 of 16 17 Vict, cap. 95, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atters comprised in the last paragraph of Section 22. Whether this is so or not, it is obvious that matters excepted from the legislative authority of the Governor-General in Council cannot be within the powers of subordinate provincial Legislatures. It is true, as pointed oat by Sir C. Ilbert, that there is on section, with respect to the laws passed by provincial Legislatures corresponding to Section 24 which relates only to laws passed by the Governor-General in Council affecting the prerogative of the Crown. Does this warrant the inference drawn by Sir Courtenay Ilbert that the provincial Legislatures do not possess the power which the Governor-General in Council has, of making laws which may affect the prerogative of the Crown? If the power of the Governor-General in Council to pass such a law was conferred by Section 24, no doubt the inference would be irresistible, that in the absence of such a section the provincial Legislature can pass no such law. The power of the Governor-General in Council to pass a law affecting the prerogative of the Crown is derived not from Section 24 but from Section 22 which, unlike the corresponding Section 43 of 3 4 William IV, cap. 85, does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made or to be performed in New Zealand have the power of judging whether they will or will not proceed in the absence of the defendant and that whether a foreign Court will or will not enforce a judgment passed in the absence of the defendant under such circumstances, it is sufficient for trying the validity of New Zealand laws in New Zealand to say that the peace, order and good government of New Zealand are promoted by the enforcement of the decrees of their own Courts in New Zealand. Though no question of prerogative being affected by the colonial Legislature was involved in either of the above cases, they afford illustrations of the liberal interpretation which has been placed by the Judical Committee of the Privy Council on the expression peace, order and good government. 19. In Gushing v. Dupuy L.R.5 App. Cas. 409 the question arose as to whether the Dominion Enactment, 40 Vict., cap. 41, Section 28, amending the Canadian Insolvency Act and providing that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in matters of insolvency should be final could and did derogate from the prerogative of the Crown to allow appeals as an act of grace. Their Lordships of the Privy Council though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly repealed by Act IX of 1857, but was virtually re-enacted as Act XV of 1859, after having obtained previously the sanction of Her Majesty as required by Section 26 of 16 17, Vict., cap. 95. 21. The Indian Councils Act, however, removed such limitation of the powers of the Indian Legislature. In that Act itself there is internal evidence that there is no such limitation even in respect of the powers of the provincial Legislatures, for Section 43 contemplates provincial legislation, with the previous sanction of the Governor-General, for regulating coins and patents or affecting the relations of Government with foreign princes or states. A reference to Sections 19 and 33 will show that both in the Governor-General's Council and in the Provincial Councils, bills may be introduced, with the previous sanction of the Governor-General or Governor as the case may be, affecting the public revenue of India or imposing any charge on such revenue. 1 draw attention to this special provision in connection with certain English decisions to be referred to hereafter in which it was held that although there is no special exemption of the King, yet he is exempted by virtue of his pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 45 of 3 4 William IV, cap. 85. 23. In my opinion, therefore, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the competence of provincial Legislatures to pass laws within the area of their powers--which is narrower than the area of the powers of the Governor-General in Council--though such laws may affect the prerogative of the Crown. If it were otherwise, the powers of the provincial Legislature to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the province would be unduly hampered. There is no small degree of uncertainty as to the extent of the prerogatives of the Crown in India and the validity of no few enactments of the provincial Legislature will be called into question in Courts on the ground that they directly or indirectly affect the royal prerogative. 24. But in construing the general words of an enactment it may be important to consider whether any prerogative of the Crown will be affected by a literal construction; and for the purposes of this case, it will be necessary to consider whether exemption from statutory duties and taxes is, in the real sense of the expression, a Crown prerogative. In the Mayor of Lyons v. East India Company 1 M.I.A. 175 the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling it to defend the State. They are not enjoyed by the sovereign in all or even in most countries and no one has said that they extend to the East Indian possessions of the British Crown. In the Advocate-General of Bengal v. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee 9 M.I.A. 391 at p. 428 Lord Kingsdown, after adverting to the introduction and establishment of the English Criminal Law in India and its application to Natives as well as Europeans with reference to the prerogatives of the Crown (pages 428--30), to forfeiture of the personal property of persons committing suicide in Calcutta, arrived at the conclusion that the English Law of 'felo de se' and forfeiture of goods and chattels did not extend to a native Hindu, though a British subject, committing suicide at Calcutta. It is unnecessary to refer to various other instances which will readily occur to one's mind, which according to the Common Law of England are comprised in the royal prerogative, but in the very nature of things are either inapplicable to or have not been introduced into India. On the other hand, it is probably true that the Crown has, according to the Common Law of India, certain prerogatives which it may exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the King is not included unless there be words to that effect, held that although the Crown was named in some of the sections of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, it was not bound by the other provisions of the Act so as to deprive it of its undoubted prerogative of Extent. This is one of the cases which the learned Advocate-General relies upon. A reference to the judgment of the Master of the Rolls will show that the decision is based not only upon the general canon of interpretation, but also upon the positive conclusion he arrived at from the wording of the sections that the Legislature intended not to deprive the Crown of its undoubted prerogative. 26. Adverting to the first portion of Lord Coke's rule, Maxwell (at page 193) points out that it would probably be more accurate to say that the Crown is not excluded from the operation of a Statute where neither its prerogative rights nor property are in question. As regards the latter portion of the rule, judicial decisions have clearly established that the Crown is sufficiently named in a Statute, within the meaning of the rule, when the intention of the Legislature to include it is clear and manifest. The canon of interpretat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they would be prepared to uphold, as often has been held before, that in any case where the prerogative of the Crown has existed, precise words must be shown to take away that prerogative. 28. This emphatic statement of the rule being founded upon general principles of construction is undoubtedly applicable as much to Indian enactments as to Colonial or Imperial Statutes; and if general words of an Indian enactment are such as a cording to their literal interpretation would divest the Crown of, or take away from it, any prerogative, right, title or interest, they would certainly have to be construed in a limited sense so as not to produce such a result which, it may be reasonable to infer, could not have been in the contemplation of the Legislature, in the absence of a clear indication of an intention to the contrary. But it is unduly stretching the language of the rule, to bring within its scope general words of a Statute imposing a tax and claim exemption for the Crown on the ground that the Crown is divested of any prerogative, right, title or interest, by giving full effect to the general words. 29. So far as exemption from any tax imposed by a Statute is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and every other Act imposing a duty or tax on the subjects.' There may well be expressions in an Act imposing a duty or tax on the subjects, such as to show that the intention of the Legislature was to impose the duty on some property belonging to the Crown. But I do not think it made out that there is any such intention shown in the Income-tax Act. Reliance was placed in the argument on the general words of the rule 'which rule shall be construed to extend to all lands, tenements and hereditaments or heritages capable of actual occupation of whatever nature and for whatever purpose occupied or enjoyed.' But I do not think this can be construed as taking away the exemption, by virture of the prerogative, of property actually occupied or enjoyed by the Crown I should rather infer that those who framed the Act thought that unless expressly named, such an occupation would have been exempted .... There had been a considerable number of decisions on the poor-rate, which laid down a much wider principle than that laid down in The King v. Cook 3 T.R. 519, namely, that whenever property was occupied for public purposes' it was exempted from poor-rate. In the Mersey Docks v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Scotch poor law proceed on a similar ground. It has been pointed out that in the Scottish poor law, half the poor-rate is imposed on the owner in respect of property, and so far the case is more closely analogous to that of the income-tax; but, I think, that whether the rate is exigible in respect of property, or in respect of occupation, the ground of exemption must be the same, viz., as said by the Lord Chancellor (Cairns) in Greig v. University of Edinburgh L.R. 1 H.L. (Sc.) 350 at p. 354 the Crown not being named in the English or Scotch Statutes on the subject of assessment, and not being bound by Statute when not expressly named, any property which is in the occupation of the Crown or of persons using it exclusively in or for the service of the Crown is not rateable to the relief of the 'poor' (pages 67--69) .... I do not say that the Assize Courts, maintained by the county for the administration of the Queen's justice in the Queen's Courts, are quite so clearly occupied by the servants of the Crown, as those Courts which are maintained by the Woods and Forests out of the general revenue of the country. Nor do I say that the Police Station maintained by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from the incidence of rating Statutes is a general privilege and is nowise dependent upon the local or imperial character of the rate. It takes effect in all cases when the Crown is not named in the Statute, or I should prefer to say, in all cases where the enactments do not take away the privilege, either in express terms or by plain and necessary implication. There is not, in my opinion, one kind of Crown exemption from the Statute of Elizabeth and another kind of Crown exemption from the Income Tax Acts, (page 76) .... Lord Bramwell.--The poor-rate is local. Whatever exempts part of the property in a rated locality, adds to the burden on the rest, and there is this additional hardship, that the exempted part may increase the burden itself by adding to the numbers chargeable on the rate. Moreover, the reasoning on which that exemption was founded may be doubtful. But it is the law; the law as confirmed in this House by the reasoning in the Mersey Docks case 11 H.L.C, 443; 35 L.J., (M.C.), 1...For, as I have said, there is some hardship in exempting any property from a local rate, there is none in exempting from a general tax a class of property everywhere within the range of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same branch of the royal prerogative Feather v. The Queen 35 L.J. (Q.B.) 200. 33. In the Mayor, do., of Weymouth v. Nugent 34 L.J. (M.C.) 81 : 6 B. S. 22 on which the learned Advocate-General specially relies, Cockburn, C.J., explained as follows the immunity enjoyed by the Crown from payment of tolls: It may be said that the doctrine of the immunity enjoyed by the Crown from payment of tolls arose in times when tolls were levied by virtue of a grant from the Crown or under prescription which presumed a prior grant from the Crown, and therefore it might well be assumed that where tolls were granted by the Crown, it was not intended by the Crown that it should itself be barred by the grant; but whether that be the origin of the immunity or not, it has obtained from the earliest times, and it cannot be supposed that the Legislature could have intended to make the Crown liable to the payment of those duties, without making any mention of the Crown at all. Both on the ground of the exemption of the Crown from payment of tolls and on the ground that the Crown is not bound by an Act of Parliament unless it is expressly named therein, it was held in that case, that the Cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., 443 at p. 508; 35 L.J., (M.C.), 1 which is the leading authority on the implied exemption, from rates and taxes, of Crown property occupied by or on behalf of the Crown for purposes connected with any department of the Government, as that decision has been followed and fully explained in the later decision of the House of Lords in Coomber v. Justices of Berks L.R. 9 App. Cas. 61, already referred to and quoted from. 37. The cases of Perry v. Eames [1891] 1 Ch. 658 and Wheaton v. Maple Co. 1893] 3 Ch. 48 which are also referred to, are not very much in point. Those oases turned upon Sections 2 and 3 of the Prescription Act (2 8 William IV, cap. 71). It was held that the former section in which the Crown is specially named did not apply to an easement of light which is specially and exclusively governed by Section 3, in which the Crown is omitted, notwithstanding that the Crown is expressly mentioned in Sections 1 and 2, and that therefore no easement of light against the Crown can be acquired by prescription under Section 3. 38. I shall now proceed to refer to certain Indian decisions, which have a bearing upon the question under consideration. In Secretary of State for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o to the Acts of the Indian Legislature framed with constant reference to the rules in England. And the rule as applied to the present case is not an unreasonable one.'' This decision was approved of and followed by the High Court of Allahabad in Collector of Moradabad v. Muhamad Daimkhan I.L.R. 2 All. 196. I may here refer to Section 212 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882, which corresponds to and substantially reproduces Section 183 of the Act of 1866, with a proviso that nothing in that section applies to proceedings by Government and also to Section 411 of the present Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of 1882) which corresponds to Section 309 of Act VIII of 1859 with an additional clause that the amount due to Government shall be a first charge on the subject-matter of the suit. These additions simply give legislative sanction to the above decisions and have been made only 'ex majors cautela' 40. In Ramachandra v. Pichai Kanni I.L.R. 7 Mad. 436 the question arose whether arrears of rent due by an Abkari renter--which are not charged upon his land---take precedence of a hypothecation debt due by the renter. It was decided and in my opinion rightly, that it had no pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayan I.L.R. 9 Mad. 175 the question as to how far the Crown was bound by the earlier laws of limitation prior to Act IIX of 1871, in which the Crown was not at all mentioned, was raised, but not decided (page 185). 44. Adverting to the English maxim of interpretation that the Crown is not bound by a Statute unless expressly named, Mr. Sedgwick, an American author, observes: But in this country generally I should doubt whether this construction could be safely assumed as a general rule. The English precedents are based on the old feudal ideas of royal dignity and prerogative; and where the terms of an Act are sweeping and universal, I see no good reason for excluding the Government, if not specially named, merely because it is Government. ('Construction of statutory and constitutional laws,' page 27.) Mr. Endlich, another American author, says: The test, therefore, in every case in which the question whether or not Government is included in the language of a Statute, has to be met and determined, cannot be a mere general rule either one way or the other, arbitrarily applied, but must be the object of the enactment, the purposes it is to serve, the mischief it is to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2 (a) and (b)--exempts certain prerogatives and customary rights of the Crown from the operation of the Easements Act. The Crown Grants Act, XV of 1896--exempts Crown grants from the operation of the Transfer of Property Act, both retrospectively and prospectively. The Civil Procedure Code, Sections 295 (proviso), 356 (b) and 411--preserve the precedence of Crown-debts. 616 (a)--exempts from the operation of the chapter relating to appeals to the Queen in Council, the prerogative rights of Her Majesty to receive and admit appeals. The Indian Companies Act, Section 212 (proviso)--exempts proceedings by Government against Companies in liquidation from being invalidated under the section. Sea Customs Act, 1878, Section 20 (proviso)--exempts goods belonging to Government from liability to customs duties. There is a corresponding exemption in the Indian Tariff Act. Indian Ports Act, 1889, Section 1 (4) i--exempts from the operation of the Act vessels belonging to or in the service of Her Majesty or the Government of India. Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 3, proviso (1), is as follows: That no duty shall be chargeable in respect of any instrument executed by o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the Secretary of State shall be liable to pay to the Municipal corporation in lieu of such tax such sums as an officer from time to time appointed in this behalf by the local Government may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, from time to time determine to be fair and reasonable. There is no provision in any of the Municipalities Acts I am aware of, which expressly subjects the Government to any tax or duty payable under the Act. And if the contention on behalf of the petitioner that it is not liable to pay any tax or duty, unless there be express provision imposing the same on Government, be well-founded, there would have been no object in passing the said enactment and it will have to remain a dead letter. The policy of the Indian Legislature is clearly indicated by the said Act XI of 1881, Viz., that Government should be liable to Municipal rates and duties unless specially exempted by law; but that when there is no such exemption, the Governor-General should be empowered by law to suspend the ordinary procedure for the levy and collection of a tax or duty payable to a Municipal corporation, without depriving the Municipality of the probable amount which Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany [1892] A.C. 481 at p. 487 in regard to the construction of section in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and recently in an Indian case in Norendra Nath Sircar v. Kamalbasini Dasi L.R. 23 I.A. 18 at p. 26 : I.L.R. 28 Calc. 563 in construing Section 111 of the Indian Succession Act, which section was incorporated in the Hindu Wills Act. In the last-mentioned case it was held that a Statute intended to embody in a Code a particular branch of the law must be construed according to the natural meaning of the language used and not on the presumption that it was intended to leave the existing law unaltered. 49. The principle of interpretation affirmed in these cases in each of which the question turned upon the construction of a section in a statutory Code does not in the least militate against the long established rule of construction that in regard to the construction of any particular Act, recourse may and ought to be had to other Acts of similar scope on similar subjects vide Colquhoun v. Brooks L.R. 14 App. Cas. 493 at p. 511 and that Acts which are in pari materia are to be taken together as forming one system and though made at different times or even expired and not referri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not proceed upon a course of reasoning or principle which will be binding on Indian Courts; (vi) exemption from payment of tolls, rates and taxes is not in reality a prerogative of the Crown, but depends solely upon the right construction to be put upon the Crown-grant or the Statute in question; (vii) since the passing of the Indian Councils Act, 1861, not only the Viceregal Council but also the Provincial Councils can, without obtaining the previous sanction of the Crown, make laws affecting the prerogatives of the Crown, when such prerogatives have no relation to any of the matters specially exempted from their respective legislative jurisdictions; (viii) even if the imposition of a duty or tax upon Crown property be regarded as affecting the prerogative of the Grown, it is competent for the Provincial Legislatures to impose such duty or tax, which will be payable out of the current public revenue, measures affecting which or imposing charges whereon, are specially contemplated by Section 38 of the Indian Councils Act, as being within the competence even of Provincial Legislatures; (ix) according to the uniform course of Indian legislation, Statutes imposing duties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
