JEO RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Jeo Raj and 39 others, who are residents of village deoli, under Article 226 of the Constitution by which they seek to challenge the validity of a tax which is called a tax on buildings under Clause (e) of Section 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. 21 of 1953 ).

(2.) THE petitioners' case is that there is a village panchayat consisting of villages, deoli, Isali, Jaitpura, Wadia and Mukanpura and has its headquarters at Deoli. The panchayat was constituted in 1955 and opposite party No. 3, Khanger Singh, is the Surpanch or it. It is further alleged that on the 21st January, 1956, the surpanch issued a notification to the effect that the Panchayat had decided to levy a house tax on the residents of village Deoli, under Clause (e) of Section 64 of the said Act. By this notification a profession tax was also sought to be levied on the residents of other villages comprising this Panchayat, but with that we are not concerned. The notification further directed that anybody who might have any objections against the imposition of the tax mentioned in the notification, should raise his objections within 30 days from the date of the notification, failing which no objections would be considered. Thereafter, on the 3rd August, 1956, the Surpanch issued a further notice in which it was stated that "a list of the tax'' imposed in village Deoli, had been prepared and was available in the Panchayat office. It was further directed that any objections against the said list should be filed within 15 days of the date of the notice, in default whereof no objections shall be considered. Finally, on the 19th October, 1956, a notice appears to have been sent to the petitioner Mohanlal calling upon him to pay Rs. 7/- within a period of 15 days. It is not mentioned in this notice for which particular period the amount was to be paid and also it is not mentioned whether the said amount was demanded as tax for one year or more. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated before us that similar notices were sent by the Panchayat to the other petitioners, but copies of those notices have not been filed as it was not considered necessary to do so. It is a matter for regret that nobody has appeared before us either on behalf of the State or of the panchayat to oppose this application.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the bouse or building tax which has been imposed by the Panchayat on the residents of Deoli in the manner pointed out above was in utter contravention of the provisions of the rajasthan Panchayat Act and was therefore completely illegal and inoperative and should be struck down as being violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. That Article clearly provides that no tax shall be levied or collected without the authority of law. The factors upon which learned counsel relies in this connection are mainly these. In the first place, it is contended that before the Panchayat could validly impose the tax in question upon the petitioners or for that matter any other tax on the residents of other villages comprised in this or any other Panchayat, the previous sanction of the Government must have been obtained by it. The contention is that no previous sanction of the State Government was taken by the Panchayat to the levy of the tax which is questioned before us. We should have been happy if the case of the State or the Panchayat had been properly represented before us, but as this opportunity is not sought to be availed of, we are left to decide the matter on such material as has been brought to our notice on behalf of the petitioners. From the copies of the notices Exs. 1 and 2 which we have referred to above, it does not at all appear that the Panchayat had applied for the sanction of the State to the imposition of the tax in question or that such sanction had been received by it. We, therefore, take it that no sanction was applied for, much less that it was received. We might further mention in this connection, that as ,a rule we would expect the Panchayat to mention the fact of its having received previous sanction of the State while issuing the proclamation under the rules enacted to effectuate section 64 of the Act. It is well established that where the validity o a tax depends upon the taxing authority having obtained previous sanction of the State Government, such previous sanction is a condition precedent to the imposition of the tax and where such sanction has not been obtained, there is no alternative but to hold that the tax is illegal and invalid. Reference may be made in support of this view to Jai Narain v. State of Rajasthan, ilr (1955) 5 Raj 818. We, therefore, hold that the levy of the building tax by the village Panchayat on the residents of village, Deoli, was illegal and must be struck down on this ground alone.