WRENDRA SHAH JUDEO Vs. COMMISSIONER AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions have been referred to us by the Board of Agricultural Income -Tax Uttar Pradesh, for decision:

(2.) A copy of that resolution is on the record of the Raja of Rampura's case for the year 1355 Fasli. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 13 are relevant and run as follows:

(3.) The learned Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax had construed the above paragraphs as imposing a cess on the Jagirdars out exempting them from payment in cash. He had held that maintenance of roads, schools; etc. by the Jagirdars amounted to payment of cesses in kind. The Board of Agricultural Income -Tax found itself unable to agree with that view and pointed out that what S. 2(1)(a) requires is that the land should have been actually assessed to cess and the cess should also have been collected by an officer of the Provincial Government. The Board was of the view that what the resolution quoted above showed was that the Jagirdars would have been liable to be assessed to cess if they had not undertaken to maintain roads, schools, etc & that liability for assessment must be distinguished from actual assessment. The Board further pointed out -that the mere liability to be assessed to cess could not mean that cess had been assessed within the meaning of S, 2(1)(a). It was also pointed out by the Board that the word "collected" was of importance and that it was not even enough that the land should be assessed to cess. But what was further required was that cess should also have been collected and further that collection should have been by an officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh. We are in entire agreement with the view of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax. It is evident that the resolution has exempted the Rajas of Jagmanpur and Rampura from cess. The reason for that exemption no doubt was that they were already spending money on those very purposes which would be the beneficiaries of cess if assessed. But there can be no doubt about it that there was a clear exemption from cess granted by the resolution, and that the Commissioner was directed to see that the benefits which the Rajas were already conferring at their instance & expense, because of which cess had been remitted, were continued. There is nothing to suggest that by this resolution a service cess, it one may so call it, was substituted for a money cess. We are therefore in full agreement on this point with the Board of Agricultural Income -Tax and we answer the Second Question in the negative.