State Of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors on 15 January, 2004
In the
case of Ajay Kumar Mukherjee (Supra), the State even could impose tax in
terms of Entry 26 of List II as was observed in I.T.C. Ltd. (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (1.94 seconds)Documents citing
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee vs Local Board Of Barpeta on 11 February, 1965
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 October, 2023
In Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta,
AIR 1965 SC 1561, the appellant, a landholder, held a hatt
(or market) on his land. The Local Board asked the appellant
to take out a licence and pay Rs. 600, later Rs. 700, by way
of licence fee for holding the market. It was urged that the
impost was unconstitutional, inter alia, on the ground that the
tax was actually imposed on the market, which infringed
Article 14 of the Constitution, and also because the State
Legislature had no legislative competence to tax a market.
The Local Board relied on Entry 49 in List II. The appellant
urged that Entries 45 to 63 which deal with taxes do
not contemplate a tax on markets. Repelling the plea,
the Constitution Bench held that the tax was on the
land though the charges arise only when the land is
used for a market. The tax remained a tax on land in
spite of the imposition being dependent upon the user
of the land as a market. The tax was an annual tax as
contrasted to a tax for each day on which the market was
held. The owner or occupier of the land was responsible for
payment of tax on an annual basis. The amount of tax
depended upon the area of the land on which the market was
held and the importance of the market. Thus, the tax was
21
held to be a tax on land, though the incidence depended upon
the use of the land as a market.
M.P. Lime Manufacturers' Association, ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 5 May, 1989
The decision in (Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta), AIR 1965 SC 1561, is however, distinguishable on facts. The following observations in that decision are pertinent (at p. 1563 of AIR) :
A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 29 September, 1983
I have already referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee's case and in Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. . In both the cases the Supreme Court held that the nature of the user of land and adoption of the annual value for determining tax liability did not make the imposition a tax on income.
Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 November, 1990
In this connection, reliance was placed on Ajoy Kumar Mukherji v. Local Board of Barpeta, AIR 1965 SC 1561. In that case the Supreme Court was considering the provisions of Assam Local self Government Act, 1953 to ascertain whether the tax was referable to Entry 49, List II. It held:
Central Coalfields Limited And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 22 March, 1999
Ajay Kumar Mukherjee case was also distinguished for the similar reason in Orissa Cement Ltd, v. State of Orissa (supra).
Model Town Residents Association, ... vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 27 August, 2001
In Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1561, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the challenged to the levy of tax on land used as market on the ground that in substance, it was a tax on market and not on land, while rejecting the challenge, the Supreme Court observed as under;
The Tirupati Real Estate Agents vs The State Of A.P. And Anr. on 11 October, 1991
The question is put beyond any controversy by the decision in Ajay Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta., 1965 S.C 1561.
Casken Tea Industries Ltd. Rep. By Its ... vs Hyderabad Urban Development Authority ... on 18 September, 1991
We may also refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor, and in Ajoy Kumar v. Local Board.
The Lokamanya Mills Barsi Limited vs Barsi Municipal Council, Barsi And Anr. on 22 November, 1966
(27) In this state of the record Mr. Porus Mehta argued, as stated above, that the petitioners have failed to prove that the imposition of a uniform rate on the basis of floor area operated unequally on the owners of different mills and factories. Mr. Porus Mehta referred in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta, . In that case an Assam Act had conferred powers on Local Boards to impose a tax on lands used as Market, and a rule made under the Act provided that the tax was to be graduated according to the size and importance of the market and that the maximum tax which a Local Board could impose on any land used as a market was Rs. 1,000. A tax at the maximum rate was imposed on the land of the appellant in that case, and the appellant complained that this imposition was discriminatory and contravened his right under Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellant had furnished no details to show that the tax was imposed in an arbitrary manner. It is in this context that their Lordships observed that the appellant, if he was to succeed on his plea under Article 14, "had to adduce facts and figures, firstly, as to the size of the five markets on which the tax was levied in the relevant years and secondly, as to the relative importance of these markets."