SECRETARY MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE ACHALPUR CITY Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL cases pending before the Magistrate against the respondents were withdrawn to this Court by an order. dated July 15, 1966, for decision on important questions of law which involved a reference to constitutional provisions. The dispute is regarding the validity of the terminal tax imposed by the Municipality which is now described as the petitioner. We were told that large number of the litigations were pending in the Magistrate's Court, as the residents within the limits of the Municipality refused to pay the tax. We therefore, treated the matter as very urgent and fixed the hearing in about three weeks before us,. with the consent of respondents.

(2.) THE Municipal Committee since about 1922 was imposing terminal tax in respect of the export and import of goods out of and within its limits. The first notification is, dated October 12, 1922, specifying the items on the export of which terminal tax had to be paid, in List No. 1 and specifying the items of the import of goods, either by rail or road, on which tax was to be paid in List NO. 2, Originally List No. 1 consisted of seven items and List No. 2 consisted of thirteen items. On April 23, 1930, in the items under the heading "maniari and Kirana", certain additional items were specified. Similarly, on January 19, 1933, further items were added. In 1942, the item "manirai": was amplified to contain several other articles, and again the item "kirana" was amended to include several other items. This went on until 1947. On May 11, 1962, the rules made under Section 67, sub-section (5), imposing terminal tax under Section 66 sub-section (1), clause (o), of the C. P. Municipalities Act, 1922, were superseded and new rules were sanctioned by the State Government imposing terminal tax on import and ex port of listed articles. List (a) which related to import of goods by rail or by road comprised as many as 103 items. On all these varying rates of terminal taxes were levied. The respondents-accused relying on the decision in Town Municipal Committee, Amraoti v. Ramchandra Vasudeo. AIR 1964, SC 1166, refused to pay the tax, on the ground that this was a new imposition of terminal tax which was not within the competence of the Municipal Committee to impose, by reason of the constitutional limitations and, therefore, it was void. As similar attitude was taken by a large number of citizens, exporting and importing goods within the Municipal Committee, the Municipal Committee instituted a large number of criminal complaints against defaulting persons. The question is whether the tax is validly levied.

(3.) THE Municipal Committee is governed by the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, Section 66 of which gives powers to the Committee to impose taxes So far as relevant for the purposes of discussion the section reads thus: