Case: The Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. &amp; Another Vs. The State of Haryana &amp; Another

2. The factory of each of the appellants was situated at Industrial Area, Sonepat. The appellants carry on business of manufacturing bicycles and bicycle components and parts.3. On 30 September, 1966 a notification dated 15 September, 1966 was published in the Punjab Government Gazette to the effect that under Sec. 5 (1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act) the President of India was pleased to declare his intention of including within the municipal limits of Sonepat in the Rohtak District, the area specified in the Schedule to the notification. The Schedule included the Industrial Area of Sonepat where the factory of the appellants was situated.4. Under Section 5 (2) of the Act the inhabitants of the area who objected to the proposed inclusion of the said area could submit their objection in writing within six weeks of the date of publication of the notification. The appellants filed objections in writing.5. On 1 November, 1966 after the bifurcation of Punjab the State of Haryana came into existence. A notification dated 11 August, 1967 was published in the Haryana Government Gazette. The Gazette notification was to the effect that the Governor of Haryana was pleased to include within the Municipality of Sonepat in the Rohtak District the areas mentioned in the notification. The industrial area within which the factory of the appellants was situated was thus included within the local limits of the Municipality of Sonepat.6. From 18 August, 1967 thepurported to impose, levy and collect from the appellants octroi in respect of raw materials, components and parts imported by the appellants into their factory for consumption or use in the manufacture of bicycles and bicycle components.7. Therelied on the provisions contained in Section 5 (4) of the Act in support of their contention that imposition of octroi which was in force within the municipality applied to the area included within the limits of the municipality by the notifications, and, therefore, the appellants were liable to payment of octroi. The provisions of Section 5 (4) of the Act are asany local area has been included in a municipality under(3) of this section of this Act, and, except as the State Government may otherwise by notification direct all rules,orders, directions and powers made, or conferred under this Act and in force throughout the whole municipality at the time, shall apply to such area".ty relied on the provisions contained in Section 5 (4) of the Act that all rules,order, directions and powers made, or conferred under the Act and in force throughout the whole municipality would apply to such an area, and, therefore, the notification No.dated 3 November, 1942 issued under Section 62 (10) of the Act notifying the imposition of octroi within the octroi limits of the Sonepat Municipality became applicable to the area included.

Court's reasoning:
21. The controversy in the present appeals is solved by finding out as to whether the notification dated 3 November, 1942 imposing octroi within the limits of the Sonepat Municipality became applicable by reason of the provisions contained in Section 5 (4) of the Act. It is noticeable at the outset that Section 5 (4) of the Act speaks of rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers and does not significantly mention notifications. It is apposite to consider Sections 6,7 and 8 of the Act which deal with the effect of exclusion of local area from the Municipality. In the case of exclusion of an area from the Municipality it is provided in Section 8 (1)(a) of the Act that "This Act and all notifications, rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers issued, made or conferred under the Act, shall cease to apply thereto". When the Act provided for notifications ceasing to apply in the case of exclusion of local areas, and in the immediately preceding Section 5 refrained from using the word notifications becoming applicable in the case of inclusion of areas the legislative intent is unambiguous and crystal clear that notifications could not become applicable to an included area on the strength of Section 5 (4) of the Act.22. The word notification cannot be said to be synonymous with rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers for two reasons. First, the Act in the present case speaks of notifications for imposition of tax and uses the word notification separately from the other words "rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers". In the case of exclusion of areas, the Act speaks of notification ceasing to apply to excluded areas whereas in the case of inclusion of areas the Act significantly omits any notification being applicable to such area. Secondly the General Clauses Act in section 21 speaks of power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws and it is, therefore, apparent that the power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws refers to different and separate methods of expression of exercise of power under the statute. Sec. 62(10) of the Act speaks of notification of the imposition of tax. Such a notification is the statutory basis of imposition and levy of tax.23. Bye-laws are entirely different from notifications imposing tax as will be manifest from Sec. 188 of the Act. Under that section the committee may by bye-laws as mentioned in Clause (g) thereof fix limits for the purpose of collecting octroi where collection of octroi has been sanctioned and may prescribe routes by which articles which are subject to octroi may be imported into Municipality. Bye-laws fixing the limits and prescribing the routes by which articles which are subject to octroi may be imported obviously cannot be equated with notification of imposition of octroi.24. In the present appeals, the High Court came to the conclusion that by reason of the provisions contained in Section 5 (4) of the Act taxes would automatically become leviable to new areas added to the Municipal limits. The High Court fell into the error of holding that taxes became automatically leviable in new areas. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Bagalkot City Municipality v. Bagalkot Cement Co., (1963) Supp (1) SCR 710 = (AIR 1963 SC 771  ) to support the conclusion of taxes becoming automatically leviable in extended areas on the ground that by reason of the provisions contained in Section 5 (4) of the Act the inhabitants of the included area would suffer all the burdens that are inherent in their inclusion within the Municipal limits. This conclusion of the High Court is not supported either by the decision of this Court or by the provisions of the statute. In the first place, a taxing provision always receives a strict interpretation for the obvious reason that there must be clear and express language imposing a tax and the date from which such tax shall come into effect. Notifications under the Act are the only authority and mandate for imposition and charge of tax. Notifications are not made applicable to included areas under Section 5 (4) of the Act.There cannot be any taxation by implication. Secondly, in the Bagalkot City Municipality case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 710 = (AIR 1963 SC 771  ) (supra) there was no provision comparable to Section 5 (4) of the Act and this Court did not decide that taxes would become automatically leviable. On the contrary, this Court in the Bagalkot City Municipality case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 710 = (AIR 1963 SC 771  ) (supra) in interpreting the words Municipal District occurring in a bye-law did not extend the meaning of the Municipal District to include areas which were subsequent to the making of the bye-law added within the limits of the Municipal District. The reason given by this Court was that the expression Municipal District in the bye-law referred to the Municipal District as existing when the bye-law was framed. The words Municipal District in the bye-law were not construed to relate to extended areas. In the Bagalkot City Municipality case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 710 = (AIR 1963 SC 771  )(supra). Section 48 of the Municipal Act provided that a bye-law could be made only with the sanction of the Government. The further provisions of Section 48 in the Bagalkot City Municipality case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 710 = (AIR 1963 SC 771  ) (supra) required publication of a proposed bye-law for the information of the persons likely to be affected thereby. The lack of publication of the bye-law to the Bagalkot Cement Company affected by the bye-law was held to be an additional reason for refusing to extend the meaning of the words Municipal District to include extended areas. There is no such aspect in the present appeals. The Bagalkot City Municipality case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 710 = (AIR 1963 SC 771  )(supra) is, therefore, of no aid in interpreting Section 5 (4) of the Act in the manner the High Court62 consists of 12Broadly stated, under Section 62 of the Act a Municipal Committee passes a resolution proposing the imposition of any tax under Section 61. When such a resolution has been passed the committee shall publish a notice defining the class of persons or description of property proposed to be taxed, the amount or rate of the tax to be imposed, and the system of assessment to be adopted. Any inhabitant objecting to the proposed tax may within thirty days from the publication of the notice submit his objection in writing to the committee. If the committee decided to amend its proposals it shall publish the amended proposal along with a notice indicating that they are in modification of those previously published for objection. Objections may within thirty days be received to the amended proposal and the committee shall then consider the objections.In the case of tax falling under S. 61 (1)(b) to (f) of the Act the Municipal Committee after settlement of the proposals shall direct that the tax be imposed and forward a copy of the order through the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government. These orders will be attracted by the provisions of Section 5 (4) of the Act to the included areas. But orders by themselves are not the authority for imposition of tax.12. In the case of tax falling under Section 61 (1)(b) to (f) of the Act the State Government on receipt of the order shall notify under Section 62 (10) of the Act the imposition of the tax in accordance with such order and shall in the notification specify a date not less than one month from the date of the notification, on which the tax shall come into force. Therefore, in the absence of notification falling within the ambit of Section 5(4) of the Act the Municipality will not be competent to levy or collect tax.13. In the case of a proposed tax under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Act the Municipality has to submit proposals together with the objection, if any, made in connection therewith to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the objections may either refuse to sanction the proposals or return them to the Municipality for further consideration or sanction them without modification or with such modification not involving an increase of the amount to be imposed, as he deems fit and then forward the same to the State Government a copy of the proposals and his order of sanction.14. In the case of tax falling under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Act the State Government on receipt of the order of sanction of the Deputy Commissioner shall notify the imposition of the tax in accordance with such order and in the notification shall specify a date not less than one month from the date of the notification, on which the tax shall come into force.15. In the case of tax falling under Section 61 (2) of the Act the Municipality has to submit proposals together with objections to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner shall submit proposals and objections with his recommendation to the State Government. The State Government on receiving the proposals for taxation under Section 61 (2) of the Act may sanction or refuse to sanction the same or return them to the committee for further consideration.16. In the case of tax falling under Section 61 (2) of the Act when the State Government on receipt of the proposals and objections along with the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner sanctions the imposition of the tax the State Government under Section 62 (10) of the Act shall notify the imposition of the tax and shall in the notification specify a date not less than one month from the date of the notification, on which the tax shall come into force.17. Inasmuch as the provisions of S. 5(4) of the Act render the order of the relevant authorities sanctioning proposal of Municipality for levy of octroi applicable to the included area, there cannot be any question of following the procedure for inviting objections to the proposed tax contemplated in Section 62. It may also be stated here that a contention was advanced on behalf of the appellants that the applicability of octroi to the included area would offend Article 14 of the Constitution by reason of denial to the persons within the included area of right to object to the tax. The provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act and, in particular,(2) thereof, confer on inhabitants within the area proposed to be included the right to object to the alteration proposed and submit objections in writing. The inhabitants would thereby have the opportunity of objecting not only to the incidence of tax as a result of the inclusion.18. Section 62 of the Act consists of 12ns deal with three matters. The first fivedeal with the procedure for proposals of tax, objections by inhabitants and final consideration of objections by the committee. Theseform part of a stage anterior to sanction by the relevant authorities of proposals for tax.19.(6) to (9) of Section 62 of the Act deal with the order of sanction by the appropriate authorities of the proposals for tax. These orders are not the provisions by which tax is imposed. These orders are sanction for imposition of tax. These orders are attracted by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 5 (4) of the Act to the included areas. But in the absence of notification by the Government under Section 62 (10) of the Act there is no imposition of tax.20. Section 62 (10) of the Act indicates that there is imposition of tax only when the State Government shall notify the imposition of the tax and shall in the notification specify a date on which the tax shall come into force. In the absence of imposition of tax by a notification under Section 62 (10) of the Act the Municipality is not competent to impose, levy or collect tax. Section 62 (12) of the Act enacts that a notification of the imposition of tax shall be conclusive evidence that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is the notification under the statute which is conclusive evidence of the imposition of tax.