Case: Pandit Ram Narain Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Andothers

1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgement and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7-5-1954 by which the H. C. dismissed an application of the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari under the provisions of Art. 226 of the constitution. The appeal raises the question of the validity of the assessment of a tax on the appellant for the year 1950-51 by the Town Area Committee of Karhal under the provisions of cl.(f) of sub.s.(1) of S.14, U. P. Town Area Act, 1914 (U.P. Act 2 of 1914), hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The appellant resides in the town of Mainpuri and carries on the business of plying a motor bus on hire. The appellants bus plies on alternate days between Etawah and Mainpuri, and the town of Karhal falls on the route between Etawah and Mainpuri. It is not now disputed that passengers travelling in the appellants bus used to get down or get in at a bus stand within the town area of Karhal; the appellant had a booking office situate within the Town Area and tickets were issued to passengers and an account of the business was maintained in the said bookingTown Area Committee of Karhal imposed a tax of Rs. 25 on the appellant for the year 1950-51 under the provisions of cl. (f) of sub.s. (1) of S.14 of the Act, being a tax on his business within the Town Area of Karhal at a sum of Rs. 800 for the year. The-appellant preferred an appeal against the assessment of the tax under S.18 of the Act, and the grounds taken by the appellant were (1) that he did not reside within the limits of the Town Area and (2) that he did not carry on any trade or business within thathis order dated 20-10-1951, the Appeal Officer held that the appellant carried on his trade or business within the limits of the Town Area and was therefore rightly assessed to tax under cl.(f) of sub.s.(1) of S.14 of the Act. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. It may be stated here that the appellant was asked to submit an account of his income, but no such account was submitted and the assessing officer worked out the income of the appellant at about Rs. 67 a month, that is, about Rs. 800 a year. No question about the amount of the tax has been raised before us, and it is not necessary to say anything further with regard to the quantum of assessment.3. The appellant then filed a writ application in the H. C. of Judicature at Allahabad and the ground taken by him was that, there could be no assessment under cl.(f) of sub.s.(1) of S.14 of the Act, because he resided outside the jurisdiction of the Town Area. The learned Judge, who dealt with the application of the appellant, took the view that the tax imposed on the appellant could clearly be imposed under cl.(d) of sub.s.(1) of S.14 of the Act; therefore it was unnecessary to consider whether the tax could be legally imposed under cl.(f) of sub.s(l) of S.The learned Judge also expressed the view that residence within the Town Area was not a prerequisite condition for the imposition of the tax under cl.(d), and it was enough if the appellant carried on a trade or business within the Town Area. On these views, the learned Judge dismissed the writ application.

Court's reasoning:
We think that learned counsel has rightly submitted that, so far as the present appellant is concerned,the list prepared under S.15 must have shown him as assessed to a certain amount of tax under cl.(f) of sub.s.(1) of S.14 and the assessment must have been confirmed on that basis by the District Magistrate. Therefore, the legality of the tax imposed on the appellant must be considered with reference to the clause under which the assessment was actually made, and a different clause under which the assessment might have fallen cannot be called in aid of thecondition appears to us to be unsound. Firstly, the objection as to preliminary proposals for taxation is not the same thing as objection to an assessment, and it may well be that the legislature in their wisdom thought fit to confine the filing of objections to preliminary proposals for taxation to the inhabitants of the Town Area. Secondly, there are several other sections of the Act such as S. 20 and S. 21, which show that the imposition of a tax on persons not resident within the Town Area but having some other nexus within the Area, was permissible. Thirdly, the question of the validity of sub.s.(4) of S. 15-A does not arise in this case. The appellant was assessed to a tax and had a right to file an appeal which right hegrievance was made of the failure to exercise the right under sub.s.(4) of S.15-A. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to make any pronouncement on the validity or otherwise of sub.s.(4) of 15-A.All that is necessary for us to state is that by reason of sub.s (4) of S.15-A, it cannot be held that residence within the Town Area is a necessary condition for the imposition of a tax in all the clauses of sub.s.(1) of S.14 of thewas rightly pointed out that it is no sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act. The meanings of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. It is true that in the Act under our consideration the taxes which the Town Area Committee may impose appear under different heads in sub.s. (1) of S.14.We have already stated that though the clauses are different, the words used in the section show that there may be overlapping between the different clauses, and to prevent the same person being subjected to multiple taxation, a proviso was incorporated inview of the words and expressions used in S.14 of the Act, we cannot accept the argument that cl.(f) should be read as entirely independent of and unconnected with the other clauses and a different condition, namely residence within the Town Area, must be read as a necessary part of cl.(f). To do so will be to read in cl.(f) words which do not occur there. The limitations for the imposition of a tax under cl.(f) are given in R. 3 and residence is only one of the alternative conditions for the imposition of the tax - not asine qua nonas is contended by learned counsel for the appellant.