Case: City Municipal Council, Mangalore &amp; Anr Vs. Frederick Pais Etc

2. The first respondent therein was the owner of a number of buildings situated in Ward II and Ward XX, within Mangalore Municipality in the South Canara District, which originally formed part of the Madras State and which, on reorganisation of the States, became part of the State of Mysore. The Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964 (Act XXII of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Act) came into force from April 1, 1965 as per the notification, dated September23, 1965, issued by the State Government. Certain sections had already come into force. Till the Mysore Act came into force, the Mangalore Municipality was governed by the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Act V of 1920) (hereinafter called the Madras Act). The Madras Act had provided for levy of property tax, the procedure to be adopted for the same and as to how the annual value of a building was to be arrived at as well as the percentage at which the property tax was to be levied. Similarly the Mysore Act had also provided for levy of property tax, prescribing the ascertainment of annual rateable value and also the rate at which the tax was to be levied. Although the Mysore Act came into force from April 1, 1965, the appellants issued demand notices for property tax under the said Act for the assessment year 1965-66. In those demand notices, the Municipal Council determined the rateable annual value under Sec. 101 (2) of the Mysore Act and assessed the tax on the basis of that annual rateable value, but at rates under the Madras Act. The tax was paid as per the demand notices. But on March 16, 1967 the appellant issued the impugned notices of demand under the Madras Act for payment of property tax for the year 1966-67. The tax demanded on the basis of the Madras Act was considerably higher than that originally demanded and paid under the Mysore Act for the assessment year 1965-66. Notwithstanding the protest made by the first respondent, the appellants threatened to collect the tax as per the demand notices and hence the first respondent filed writ petition No. 1907 of 1967 challenging the demand notices. The main grounds of attack against the demand notices, as raised in the said writ petition were that after the passing of the Mysore Act the appellants had no power to levy property tax under the Madras Act and therefore the demands were illegal. The demand notices were further attacked on the ground that S 382 of the Mysore Act, which related to the repeal of many Acts including the Madras Act and the saving provisions contained therein did not justify the issue of the demand notices. The first respondent accordingly prayed for quashing the demand notices issued under the Madras Act. He has also raised certain contentions regarding the levy of health cess included in the notices; but it is unnecessary to refer to those averments as the High Court has held against the first respondent and that question does not arise on these appeals.3. The appellants pleaded that under the Mysore Act, Property tax, among other things, has been imposed after following the procedure prescribed in Sections 95 to 97 therein and the imposition of tax has come into force from April 1, 1967, but for the period in question viz., the year 1966-67 the demands were legal and valid in view of the provisions contained in Section 382 of the Mysore Act. Notwithstanding the repeal of the Madras Act, the provisions contained in Sec. 382 of the Mysore Act clearly saved the right of the appellants to levy property tax under the Madras Act to adopt both the annual value as well as the rate of tax as per the assessment registers maintained under the said Act. In particular, the appellants relied upon the second proviso in Section 382 (1) of the Mysore Act and the third proviso inserted in the said section with retrospective effect, by the Mysore Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1966 (Mysore Act XXXIV of 1966). According to the appellants, as necessarily the imposition of property tax under the Mysore Act, after following the procedure contained therein will take time, the Legislature had made consequential provisions in Section 382 with a view to enable the imposition of property tax under the repealing enactments during the interim period.4. The High Court has, by and large, accepted the contentions of the first respondent. According to the High Court, although the higher rate of tax under the Madras Act is preserved by proviso 3 to Section 382 (1) of the Mysore Act, the provision for the determination of the annual value under Section 82 (2) of the Madras Act is not saved. The High Court is further of the view that the second proviso to Section 382 (1) of the Mysore Act only continues the old impost and the third proviso preserves the old rates and that they do not continue the old annual value. The net result of the decision of the High Court is that the decision of the High Court is that the Municipal Council has to determine the annual rateable value of the building as provided by Section 101 (2) of the Mysore Act and to assess the property tax at the rate at which it is assessed under at the rate at which it is assessed under the Madras Act. Finally the High Court quashed the demand notices issued by the appellants.

Court's reasoning:
10. The learned Solicitor General has urged that the assessment books under the Madras Act were prepared on April 1, 1964 and, if so, under the second and third provisos to Section 382 (1), the property tax can be levied and collected as per the provisions of the Madras Act. In particular, the learned Solicitor General placed reliance upon the provision of the Madras Act relating to the assessment books having to be revised only once in every five years and pointed out that in this case the assessment books having been prepared on April 1, 1964 they will have currency for a period of five years till March 31, 1969. The first proviso to Section 382 (1) no doubt saves any tax which had been imposed under the Madras Act.Similarly, under the third proviso, the Municipal Council will have authority to collect tax even at a rate higher than the maximum rate permissible under the Mysore Act; but the essential requisite for attracting the two provisos is that the tax should have been imposed under the Madras Act as per the thirdproceedings will not assist the appellant as the necessary procedure, under the Mysore Act, has not been followed and therefore that resolution cannot have any legal validity, so as to justify the imposition of tax. Normally, the municipal council will have to prepare a fresh assessment list, every year. By virtue of Section 124 of the Madras Act, the rules and tables embodied in Schedule IV have to be read as Part of Chapter VI dealing with Taxation and Finance. Though, ordinarily, the Municipality would have to prepare a fresh assessment list every year, Rule 8 of Schedule IV permits the Municipal Council to continue the same assessment list for the next four succeeding years and to revise it once every five years. But, in order to enable the Municipal Council to levy and collect a tax, it has to pass a resolution determining to levy a tax, the rate at which such tax has to be levied as also the date from which it shall be levied. That the tax is an annual tax is also borne out by sub-section (2) of Section 82. If the contention of the learned Solicitor that the assessment list, once prepared, has to be adopted for five years is accepted, it will result in the annual value on a particular building or house being static for five years, during which a municipal council can go on adopting the assessment list prepared in an earlier year and the owner or occupier of the building being deprived of the right to object to the valuation regarding the annual value or the tax assessed thereon. This will be the result even though the annual value may have decreased for one reason or the other. It follows that the contention that the preparation of the assessment books amounts to imposing of a tax so as to justify the issue of the demand notice, cannot be accepted.12. Having due regard to the second and third provisos to Section 382 (1) and the other material provisions of the Mysore Act, the position is that a property tax must have been imposed by the Madras Act and even though the rates of such tax were higher than under the Mysore Act, the said higher tax could be collected. But no such tax having been imposed under the Madras Act, the second and third provisos to S.382 (1) do not apply and hence the demands for payment of property tax for the period are not justified.