JANAPAD PANCHAYAT Vs. COLLECTOR SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for our decision is about the meaning of the word 'imposition' occurring in section 159 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats act, 1962 (here-in-after called the Act ). The question is whether the word 'imposition' in the context means only the stage commencing with assessment or quantification of tax with reference to an ascertained person after authority to levy it has been acquired or also the initial stage of acquisition of authority to levy the same.

(2.) THE relevant facts, which have led to the filing of this petition, are these: The Janapada Panchayat, Rehli, District Sagar, passed a resolution to impose a tax called 'show tax' as permitted by section 157 (b) of the Act with effect from 1-4-1973 at rates which were specified in its resolutions (Annexures A and B ). The respondent No. 2 is the owner of Kalpna Talkies at Rehli. As a result of this imposition, the respondent No. 2 became a person liable to pay the tax with effect from 1-4-1973. Accordingly, an intimation Annexure-C dated 1-3-1973 was sent by the Janapada Panchayat to respondent No. 2 intimating the fact that the tax would become recoverable from 1-4-1973 and for this purpose the Janapada Panchayat requested the respondent No. 2 to furnish certain details of the number of cinema-shows every month in the cinema-hall of respondent No. 2. It is significant that no demand of any specific amount was made therein for the obvious reason that the tax was to be payable only from a future date. The respondent No. 2 replied by Annexare- D dated 8-3-1973 requesting the Janapada Panchayat to reconsider the question of imposing this levy. Apart from this, the respondent No. 2 filed as appeal annexure- F to the Collector, Sagar, under section 159 of the Act, since the collector is the prescribed authority for hearing the appeals under that provision. Before the Collector, it appears, the Janapada Panchayat agreed to give a hearing to respondent No 2 and not to recover any tax till then. Consequently, such a consent order Annexure- J dated 23-7-1973 was passed by the collector to this effect.

(3.) THE Janapada Panchayat has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Collector's order annexure- J dated 23-7-1973 passed in the appeal under section 159 of the Act. The only argument of Shri P. C. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that such as appeal was incompetent under section 159 of the Act since the provision of appeal does not permit any challenge to the authority to levy the tax but only to an assessment or demand of tax from any particular person after the same has become payable. It is argued that such a situation had not reached in the present case and the only challenge by the respondent No. 2 in his appeal being to the authority to levy tax and not to any assessment or specific demand made from him after acquisition of that authority, the appeal was not maintainable. The reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 is that the word 'imposition' occurring in section 159 is wide enough to permit a challenge also to the authority to levy tax, so that a person like the respondent No. 2, who would become liable for payment of the tax after its enforcement, can file an appeal under section 159 of the Act challenging merely the acquisition of that authority or, in other words, the decision to impose the tax under section 157 of the Act. This is how the above point arises for our decision.