ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND TAX EGMORE MADRAS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER APPOINTED UNDER THE ACT II ASST JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent in U.L.T. App.no.51 of 1975 dated 2.2.1976 That was an appeal preferred by the second respondent to the first respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (Act 12 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order of the petitioner dated 25.2.1968, assessing the property of the second respondent under the Act. The vires of the charging provisions of the Act was challenged by a number of persons before this Court and a Full Bench of this Court in V.Pattabhiraman v. Assistant Commissioner, U.L.T., I.L.R(1969) 2 Mad. 1: A.I.R. 1971 Mad. 61, struck down the charging provisions of the Act. The second respondent also came to this Court in W.P.No.380 of 1968 putting forth the same challenge and he had the benefit of the challenge upheld by this Court. It must be noted here that so far as the decision in W.P.No.380 of 1968 was concerned, the matter was left at that and there was no further agitiation over it. Some other matters were taken up to the Supreme Court by the Revenue and the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner v. B. and C. Ltd., (1970)1 M.L.J.(S.C) 55: (1970)1 An.W.R.(S.C) 55: (1970)1 S.C.J. 26: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 169: (1970)1 S.C.R. 268. upeheld the validity of the charging provisions of the Act reversing the pronouncement of this Court. Thereafter, assessment proceedings under the Act were sought to be prosecuted. However, the second respondent, as already narrated, approached the first respondent by way of appeal. The second respondent primarily contended that the decision in W.P.No.380 of 1968 in his favour not having had been agitated against, must be held to have become final and conclusive and the Revenue cannot take advantage of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court to revive and continue the assessment proceedings under the Act. This contention has been upheld by the first respondent and finding this point in favour of the second respondent and without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent has allowed the appeal. This has obliged the Revenue to come to this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) Mr.K.S. Bhaktavathsalam, learned Additional Government Pleader, would place before me the relevant pronouncements, including the one by the highest Court in the land on the question as to how far the law declared by the highest Court in the land should be taken note of and implemented without any reservation despite the fact that in respect of a particular lis, there was no further agitation. Padmanabhan, J., in the Assistant Commissioner, U.L.T. v. Raja V.V. Seetharamayya Bahadur, etc., W.P.Nos.227 and 325 of 1978 order dt.9.9.1980 opined that the reversal of the pronouncement of the judgment of this Court by the Supreme Court can be availed of to continue the proceedings under the Act in general, even though individual appeals against all the matters covered by the pronouncement of the Full Bench, were not filed before the Supreme. Court. This decision of the learned Judge was taken in appeal and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Ramanujam and Sathar Sayeed, JJ., in Raja V.V. Seetharamayya Bahadur v. Assistant Commissioner, U.L.T., 98 L.W. 896, took a different view. Even though there is no reference to the above pronouncement In the order passed by the first respondent, the first respondent has more or less proceeded on the same reasoning as expressedly the Bench in the above pronouncement. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in the context of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1979, the Supreme Court in Shenoy and Co. v. C.T.O., (1985)2 S.C.C. 512: (1985)60 S.T.C. 70: A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 621, has held that a law laid down by It would bind not only the litigants before it, but also all others in view of the binding nature of its judgment under Art.141 of the Constitution of India. This latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court must govern the controversy in the this writ petition, and in fact, the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader is only built over it. If this is the. principle to be taken note of then, the non-agitation by the Revenue as against the decision in W.P.No.380 of 1968, would not alter the position and now the vires of the charging provisions of the Act having been upheld by the Supreme Court, the assessment proceedings could as well be continued without any legal impediment therefor, as the second respondent would urge and as countenanced by the first respondent. My attention was also drawn to the pronouncement of Sathiadev.J., in Assistant Commissioner, U.L.T. v. II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and another, W.P.No.3237of 1979, order dated 14.3.1986, taking a similar view.

(3.) However, Mr.V.Suresham, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the order of the first respondent is dated 2.2.1976 and the petitioner has approached this Court only in October, 1980, and the petitioner is guilty of laches and that must dissuade this Court from showing any indulgence, even if merits are made out. I could not appreciate and sustain this line of thinking by the learned counsel for the second respondent, because as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioner, the law on this point was not settled until recently and even at the time of the fillig of the writ petition, writ proceedings were pending before this Court, raising the very same point, which, has been found in favour of the Revenue by the pronouncement of Padmanabhan.J., on 9.9.1980. Hence, I am of the view that laches need not be put against the petitioner.