Case: Sockieting Tea Company Private Limited Vs. Under Secretary To The Government of Assam &amp; Others

2. The appellant is an incorporated company. It has a tea garden by the name of Dukhinhongra Tea Estate. This tea estate established a market on its own private land. This market is stated to have been functioning for about 100 years. When the market was under the administrative control of the Local Board, the appellant used to pay Rs. 1,000/per year as licence fee. In 1959, The Assam Panchayat Act, 1959 came into force. The administration of this market vested in what is called Anchalik Panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Act. The Golghat East Anchalik Panchayat in a meeting held on the May 23, 1966 proposed an increase of the tax and the licence fee and decided that the licence fee should be raised to Rs. 7,000/per annum. That proposal was accepted by the Government w.e.f. the financial year 1967. In the order itself, it was stated that the revised rate of licence fee shall be Rs. 7,000/3. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. In the Writ Petition the main point which appears to have been raised is that the licence fee of Rs. 7,000/per annum was not related to the services rendered by the local authority. The authority of the Panchayat to levy tax or fee in respect of a market was also challenged4. From the judgment of the High Court it seems that the only point that was argued was that the imposition of licence fee could not be made without publication under Section 78 (4) of the Act. The High Court found no merit in that submission.

Reasoning:
6. The points, which Mr. Mukherjee has now sought to raise, are :(1) That rule 15 only gives rates and provides for the levy of taxes which are authorised by Section 76. In the present case, the Anchalik Panchayat could not have levied any tax under Section 76 because no such power is conferred on it by that section in respect of a Panchayat. It is only under the provisions of Ss. 78 and 79 that any tax can be levied if at all on a market. It is contended, therefore, that the entire levy was misconceived and the maximum rate of Rs. 7,000/per annum could be imposed only under Rule 15 (6) which on the face of it is not applicable to the present case(2) If the amount of Rs. 7,000/7.Now none of these points was raised at any stage before as has already been observed and it is not possible in this petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution to allow new points to be raised for which no foundation was laid even in the Writ Petition. The only point which was argued has already been mentioned aboutn as required by S. 78 (4) of the Act. Mr. Mukherjee has not been able to persuade us that there is any merit in that point.