Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It may be observed that it is not disputed that the Municipal Board did not consider the case of imposition of the property tax after receiving the Govt. sanction for the imposition of the tax. Section 77 of the Act invests the power in the Municipal Board for the imposition of the property tax after fulfilling certain conditions. It is evident that the preliminary procedure was fold. by the Municipality for the imposition of the property tax, but after all that had been done, the case was not placed before the Municipal Board for exercising its power Under Section 77 for imposing the tax. The argument that the resolution passed by the Municipal Board on 6-5-1947 for the levy of the property tax should be consd. sufficient for the imposition of the tax does not appear to be sound, because at the time the resolution was passed, the Municipal Board was not authorised to levy any such tax. It could impose such a tax only after receiving the Govt. sanction Under Section 79 of the Act. After having obtained the Govt. sanction the Chairman, without placing the matter before the Municipal Board, published the rules & the notice as was required by Section 80 of the Act. Mr. Bhandari, however, argued that this was merely am executive or ministerial act which could be performed by the Chairman under the authority of Section 80 of the Act, but it may be pointed out that it cannot be held that the matter of imposition of the property tax is only an executive or a ministerial act. Imposition of property tax can be done only by the Municipal Board as is required by Section 77. No other authority can perform this function, unless it can be shown that the Municipal Board validly delegated this function to some of its functionaries according to law which is not the case here. The Chairman had no authority given to him by the Municipal Board relating to the imposition of the property tax. The defect of giving a date for the imposition of the tax in the notice, which was published Under Section 80 of the Act, if also detrimental to the case of the opposite party. Section 80 provides the method of the imposition of the tax & unless it is strictly complied with it cannot be held that the tax was validly imposed. The publication of date for coming into force of the tax is necessary Under Section 80 of the Act. The date fixed in that notice regarding the coming into force of the rules, does not by necessary implication serve the purpose of the date for the coming into force of the rules could come into force from the date given therein, but the property tax, be cause unless the date for the imposition of the tax was specified the tax would not come into force, & the adoption of the rules could not by itself bring into operation the imposition of the tax. It is, therefore, clear that the Municipal Board did not in the present case impose the property tax as required by Section 77 or 80 of the Act. The Chairman or the Assessment Officer of the Municipality took it for granted that the tax was imposed on the basis of the first resolution of the Municipality which was passed at the time when the Municipality had no authority to impose any such tax & they proceeded on such a wrong presumption & published the assessment list on 24-12-1950 & invited objections thereto. Had even the publication of the notice Under Section 80 been according to law, a presumption would have arisen in favour of the Municipality of having imposed the property tax, but this being not so, no presumption can be raised for the valid imposition of the tax by the Municipality. Mr. Bhandari admitted that there was no resolution passed by the Municipal Board after the sanction of the Govt. for the imposition of the tax. The Chairman & the Assessment Officer according to him acted on the supposition as refd. to above that the tax had been imposed by the Municipality by its first resolution. The argument of Mr. Bhandari that no sooner the Govt. sanction was obtained & it was published in; the Gazette, the tax was automatically imposed' does not appear to be sound, because the power conferred upon the Municipality to impose a tax; could be exercised by the Municipality & by none else. The Govt. sanction only authorised the Municipality to adopt the property tax, if it so desired. Mr. Bhandari has laid stress on the word, 'shall' appearing in Section 80 & has argued that the Municipality hid no option to impose the tax after the Govt. sanction, but it was mandatory for it to publish the rules & to impose the tax. He therefore, thinks that the imposition of the tax was made automatical by the publication of the rules & the Govt. sanction Under Section 80 of the Act. The logic of Mr. Bhandari is, however, faulty because the power to impose the property tax has been conferred on the Municipality Under Section 77 of the Act & it is discretionary for the Municipality to impose the tax if it so desires, or not to do so. The word used in Section 77 in this connection is 'may' & not 'shall' & if the Municipality Under Section 77 decides to impose the tax, then it is mandatory in that case alone on the Municipality to publish the rules & the Govt. sanction Under Section 80 for the purpose of imposing the tax. The word; 'shall' in Section 80 should read to mean that it is obligatory on the Municipal Board to publish the Notfn. & the rules after the Municipal Board decides to impose the tax. In the event of imposing the tax it is mandatory to publish the notice etc. Under Section 80, but if the Municipality does not desire to impose any tax it is not necessary for it to publish the Govt. sanction & the rules. As a matter of fact, it seems quite clear in the present case that the Municipal Council never applied its mind & decided at any time after receiving the Govt. sanction regarding the imposition of the property tax, & as such it is clear that no property tax was ever imposed by the Municipality according to law. The resolution of the Municipality for the levy of the tax was passed at the time when it had no authority to do so. It was simply passed as was required by Section 78 of the Act, in observance of the preliminary procedure which was necessary to follow for the Municipality in this behalf. In the Municipal Council Cuddappah v. M. & S. M. Ely. Go. Ltd., A.I.R. (16) 1929 Mad. 746 : (52 Mad. 779), it has been observed as follows :