DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Vs. GURUPRATAPSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Deputy Commissioner, Akola, under Section 83 (2) of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act (Act 2) of 1922 as applied to Berar by Notification No. 58-I, dated the 22nd January 1924 of the Government of India, Foreign and Political Department, of the Governor-General in Council. It arises out of an appeal preferred by non-applicant Gurupratapsingh proprietor of Gulabrai Hardayal Ginning and Pressing Factory, Basim. I may briefly state the circumstances which necessitated this reference.

(2.) WITHIN the limits of the Municipal Committee of Basim the non applicant has a ginning and pressing factory. A tax on professions and trades was imposed by the Municipal Committee under the authority of the Residency Order No. 112, dated the 18th March 1899, under Section 41 Sub-section 1-A (b) of the Berar Municipal Law of 1886, with effect from the 1st April 1899, on all traders practising their calling within the Municipality. Consequently the non-applicant's income from all trades including the trade of ginning and pressing cotton became taxable under the said order. By proviso 1 of Rule 1 of the said order Rs. 500 per annum was fixed as the maximum tax leviable from a trader. By Provisos 2,

(3.) FOR the year 1924-25 the non-applicant had to pay : (1) Rs. 90, on account of the tax on professions and trades, leviable under the Residency Order No. 112, dated the 18th March 1899, and (2) Rs. 1,057 on account of the tax on ginning and pressing of cotton under the Notification. No. 456, dated the 29th April 1913. These payments which amounted to Rs. 1,147 were made by him under protest. He therefore applied for a refund of Rs. 647 to the Municipal Committee on the ground that the maximum of Rs. 500 fixed by Proviso 1 to Rule 1 of the Residency Order No. 112, dated the 18th March 1899, was applicable to the new tax imposed under Notification No. 456, dated the 29th April 1913, also. The application was rejected by the Municipal Committee by an order dated the 29th June 1925. The non-applicant went up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 83 of Act 2 of 1922 as applied to Berar. When the matter came up for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner he called upon the Municipal Committee to show cause why the refund asked for should not be ordered to be made. After hearing the arguments he apparently thought that the matter was not clear and he entertained reasonable doubt, and has consequently referred the point of the applicability of the limit of the maximum tax of Rs. 500 to the new tax for the decision of this Court.