Remanded

Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. U. Krishna Rao & Ors.

Supreme Court17 Oct 19691969 INSC 302 · [1970] 2 S.C.R. 9171969 INSC 302

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Mysore High Court quashing demands for contribution and audit fee from a South Kanara temple. The Supreme Court held general rules prescribing the s. 76(1) levy were valid; no temple-specific rules were needed. The High Court's order was set aside and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

High Court order set aside; case remanded to High Court for disposal according to law in light of the Court's observations; costs of appeal made costs in the High Court.

What the court decided

Commissioner of Hindu Religious… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Supreme Court (1970)

¶1

917

¶2

A COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE

¶3

¶4

U. KRISHNA RAO & ORS.

¶5

October 17, 1969

¶6

¶7

[J. C. SHAH AND K. S. tlEGDE; JJ.]

¶8

ll-1adras Hirzdu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as amended by Act 27 of 1954-SectiollS 76(1) and JOO-Nature of comribution leviable-Rules prescribing the levy need not be /rained for indivi~ dual tenzples.

¶9

In 1955 the Government of Madras framed Rules under the Madras c Hindu Religious and Chaiitable Endowments Act, 1951, as amended by Act 27 of 1954, prescribing a graduated scale of rates of contribution unde· s. 76(1) of the Act. The rules remained in force in the State of MyH.ue after reorganisation df the State of Madras and applied to the temples in the South Kanara district which \Vas incorporated in the Mysore State. On a petition by the repondents,-trustees of a temple in the South Kanara district, the High Court of Mysore in Dvra;a Shenoy v. D The Siate of Mysore [196J Mys. L.J. 2451 declared invalid certain provisions of the amended Act imposing control upon the administration of ternph:s governed by the Act. Thereafter thl! Assistant Commissioner of Relig:ous Endowments directed the respondents to pay the arrears of con~ tribution and audit !fee. The respondents again moved the High Court challenging the validity of the demand. The High Court upheld their ple1 on the ground that no rules had been framed under s. 100 of the Act, and, therefore, the demand for ·recovery of contribution was premature. E The decision of the High Court was largely influenced by some obervations made in the judgment in Devra;a Shenoy's case. The court observed that since what was stated in that case 0,1 behalf of the State was that the amount o'f contribution payable by the petitioner (respondent) temple had tJJ be prescribed by a rule which 'remained to be made it meant that what was decided was that no contribution could be recovered from the temple until such a rule was made. Regarding the demand for arrears of audit fee the court held that the Commissioner had not "determined' the cost of F auditing the account of the respondent temple under s. 76 (2) of the Act and the demand was "on that account without competence or authority of law." In appeal to this Court,

¶10

HELD : (i) It is true that the High Court declared invalid certain provisions of the Act imposing control over the admini~tration of temples governed by the Act. But on that account the power to m:ike rllles v;as not restricted nor were the rules¹ framed by the government rendered in· G valid. The assumption made by the High Court that the Government had to make under s. 100 rules applicable to each temple separately and prescrib· ing the levy for determining contribution, :finds no support in the provisions of the Act or its scheme. Under the Act a fee though levied for rendering services of a particular type need not be co-related to the services perform· ed for each individual who is intended to obtain the benefit of the services. The co-relation must be between the expenses incurred by the authority levying the fee for generally providing the service and the aggregate of the levv H from persons who are to be made subject thereto. It is a necessary corollary that general rules prescribing the levy of fee from· religious endowments have to be made and not rules governing individual endowinents. Such general rules were in fact "·;nmed and \Vere in operation when the

¶11

¶12

(1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶13

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶14

918

¶15

demand. was made. The concession made by the Advocate-General at the hearing in Devraja Shenoy's case did not oblige the State to 'frame separate rules in respect of each individual religious institution. Even if the respon- dent temple did not need the services or did not obtain benefit of the ser- vices provided the contribution would still be recoverable. Becaus.! the rules were framed at a time \Vhen several different kinds of services were intended to be rendered and the court later struck down certain provisions cYf the Act under which services \vere to be rendered, the rules framed in 1955 cannot be held to be inapplicable. (921 A-B, G; 922 E, G-923 Bl

¶16

¶17

¶18

H. H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swnn1iar v. Conunissioner for Hindu Religi- ous & Charitable Endowments, Mysore, [19631 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 302, referred to. (ii) It was not the case Of the re3pondents in their petition in the High Court that the Commissioner had not "determined" the audit fee under s. 76(2). It was merely asserted that the fee demanded was exC cessive. Since the High Court proceeded upon the ground of absence of determination by the Commissioner which was never pleaded and the High Court had not determined whether the audit fee demanded \v~-s for meeting the cost of auditing the accounts of the respondent temple, the order passed by the High Court must be set aside and the case remanded. (924 CJ •

¶19

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2312 of D 1966.

¶20

Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 7, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 781 of 1960. M. C. Chag/a; S. S. Java/i and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants. M. K. Nambyar, G. L. Sanghi and J. B. Dadachanji for E respondents Nos. 1 to 5.

¶21

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶22

Shah, J. The Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 19 of 1951 was enacted to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charital!le Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras.· This Court in The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt(') held that ss. 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 56 and 63 to 69 of Act 19 of -J 951 were ultra vires, in that they infringed the guarantee of the fundamental rights in Arts. 19(1)(f), 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. This Court also held. that s. 76(1) providing for imposing liability for payment of contribution which was of the nature of a tax -and not a fee, was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

¶23

The Legislature then amended the Act by Madras Act 27 of 1954. On August 11, 1955, the Government of Madras framed Rules under the Act prescribing a graduated scale of rates of contribution under s. 76(1).

(I) [1954] S.C.R. 1005.

¶29

COMMR, RhLlGIOUS ENDOWMENTS v. U. K. RAO (Shah, /.) 919

¶30

¶31

A Th~ respondents w!io .are trusteeli' bf the Venkataramana Temple al Mulki, Distri<;,t Scitith Kanaqi, moved a petition in the High Court \lf Madras"'Jor an order restraihing the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable End.owrhents from 'enforcing the provisions of the AmendJng Act 27 .of 1954. Under the schemt! of reorganization of State of Madras, the petition was tral).sferred for B trial to the High cour\ of M:xsore. The )1igh Court of Mysore by order dated March I 0, 19'59, held that ss. 21, 10(;1), 31, 63 to '69 and 39 as amended by' AC! 27 of 1954 were inv'alicf: Devraja Shcnoy·v. The State'•o(Madras(¹ ). , " • ,•

¶32

THe Assistant Commissioner of Religious Endowments Mysore, c issued on September 30, 199 directing the respondent. to pay the arrears of contributions and audit fee under the Commissioner's demand notice dated·June' '25, 1957. The.respondents moved another petition in the ;High Court of Mysore challenging t.he validity .of the demand. The High Court upheld the plea.on the ground that no rules· had been frmfied under s. 100 of the Act, and therefore, the demand for levy.a contribution.was.r,remature, and that D audit fee deihanded by the Commissjoner. was .without ,determination under s. 76('f) of th~ Act and WflS :'on that, accoul).t w,ithout competence or authori\y of Jaw". With.certificate granted·by the High Court, the Commissioner of Hindi,! Religious & Charitable - Endowments has preferred thiS appeal. '

¶33

¶34

¶35

The provisions of the Act ·which are rlevant may first be read : S. '71-" (1) The trustee of every religious institution sjiall keep regular acounts of air receipts and disbursements.

¶36

(2) The accounts of evefy. religious ,institution, the an)rnal income· of which as calculated for the· ourposes of 'section 7 6 for the fasli year immediately preceding is not less than sixty thousand rupees, shall be subject to concurrent au,dif, that is tq s'ay, the audit shall take place as apd'when expenqiture is incurred.

¶37

'"(3)

¶38

¶39

( 4) The audit sh,all be made-

¶40

( a) in the case of a religious institution the annual income of which calculated as aforesaid for the fasli year immediately· i:receding is pot !Css than· one thousand rupees, by auditors .appoh1te_c!. in.~he prescribed ll)afmer,

¶41

¶42

,. (b) ...

¶43

(I) (1900) Mys. L.J. 24.S:

¶44

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

( 1970] 2 S.C.R.

920

S. 76-"(l) In respect oi the services rendered by the Government and their office;s and for defraying the expenses :ncurred on account of such services every religious institution shall from the income derived by it, pay to the Commissioner annually such contribution not exceeding five per centum of its income as may be prt scribed.

¶49

(2) Every religious institution, the annual income of which, for the fasli year immediately preceding as calculated for the purposes of the levy of contribution under sub-section (!), is not less than one thousand rupees, shall pay to the Commissioner annually, for meeting the cost of auditing its accounts, such further sum not exceeding one and a half per centum of its income as the Commissioner may determine.

(3)

(4) The Government shall pay the salaries, allowances, pensions and other beneficial remuneration of the Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and other officers and servants (other than executive officers of religious institutions) employed for the purposes of this Act and the other expenses incurred for such purposes, including the expenses of Area Committees and the cost of auditing the accounts of religious institutions.

(5) ,,

S. 100-." ( 1) The Government may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act ·and not inconsistent therewith.

¶58

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, they shall have power to make rules with reference to the following matters :-

¶59

(c) the method of calculating the income of a religious institution for the purpose of levyin_ contribution and the rate at which it shall be levied;

¶60

Rules were framed by the State of Madras on August 11, 1955 authorising the imposition of a graded levy of contribution. The Rules framed by the Government of the State of Madras remained in force in the State of Mysore after reorganization of the State of Madras, and applied to the temples in the South Kanara District which was incorporated in the Mysore State. It is true that the High Court of Mysore declared invalid certain provisions of

COMMR, RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS V. U. K, RAO (Shah, /.} 921

¶65

the Act imposing control upon !he administration of temples governed by the Act. Bu( on that account the power to make rules was not restricted, nor were the rules· framed by the Government rendered invalid. The decision of the High Court that no rules for the levy of contribution were framed was largely influenced by the observations made in the judgment in Devraja Shenoy's B case('). It was observed in that case that since the respondents had applied for restraining the State from enforcing any of the provisions of the Act, an investigation into the substainability of that claim would have involved determination c: the validity of s. 76(1) and of any demand for contribution under its provisions and since the Advocate General appearing for the State in that case c had informed the Court that the question did not fall to be determined because rules prescribing the contribution payable by the respondent-temple "had yet to be made, which meant that until such rule was made no contributio)l. could be demanded", the conclusion reached by the Court was in truth "a decision on one of the material questions arising in that case, and binding on all the parties to that case." The Court proceeded to observe :

¶66

¶67

"In that view of the matter it is incontrovertible that what was stated in the previous case on behalf of the State was that the amount of contribution payable by the petitioners (respondent) temple should be prescribed by a rul.: which remained to be made which means that what was decided by this Court was that no such contriE bution could be recovered from that temple until such a rule was made.

¶68

The impugned demand made on June 25, 1957 befo1G this Court rendered its decisio)l. in Devraja Shenoy's case(') on March 10, 1959 having no efficacy or effect, since it was a plainly premature demand made even before the liability to pay the contribution came into existence, has to be and is accordingly quashed."

¶69

This view, in our judgment, proceeds upon an incorrect view of' the true nature of the contribution leviable under s. 76(1) of the Act. The assumption made by the Court that under the Act the G Government had to make under s. 100 rules applicable to each temple separately and pre,cribing the method for determining contribution finds no support in the provisions of the Act or its scheme.

¶70

The true nature of the contribution exigible under s. 76(1) under Madras Act 19 of 1951 was explained by this Court in H. H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hi:1du H Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore('). It was pointed out that (p. 323) :

¶71

(I) (1)61) My;. L.J. 245.

¶72

(2) [1963] Supp. 2 s.<;.R. 302.

¶73

922

¶74

[1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶75

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶76

"A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness pres~nt in it, nor is it a postulate of a fee that it must have direct relation to the actual services rendered by the authority to individual who obtains the benefit of the service. ICwith a view to provide a specific service, levy is imposed by law and expenses for maintaining the service are met out of the amounts collected there being a reasonable relation between the levy and the expenses incurred for rendering the service, the levy would be in the nature of a fee and not in the nature of a tax. It is true that ordinarily a fee is uniform and no account is taken of the varying abilities of different recipients. But absence of uniformity is not a criterion on which alone it can be said that it is of the nature of a tax. A fee being a levy in consideration of rendering servjce of a particular type, co-relation between the expenditure by the G'overnment and the levy must undoubtedly exist, but a levy will not be regarded as a tax merely because of the absence of uniforn1ity in its incidence, or because of compulsion in the collection thereof, nor because some of the contributories do not obtain the same degree of service as others may."

¶77

Under the Act a fee though levied for rendering services of a particubr type is not to be co-related to the services performed for each individual who is intended to obtain the benefit of the services. The cc-relation must be between the expenses incurred by the authority kvying the fee for generally providing the service and the aggregate of the levy from persons who are to be made subject thereto. It is a necessary corollary that under the Act general rules prescribing the levy of fee from religious endowments have to be made, and not rules governing individual endowments.

¶78

The Act does not contemplate separate rules to be made in respect of each religious institution likely to obtain the benefit of Services rendered by the State for which the contribution is to be levied. The concession m•"- by the Advocate-General at the hearinj! in Devraja Shenoy's case(¹ ) does not oblige the State to frame separate rules in respect of ea9h individual religious institution. The rules under the Act have to be general. And such rules were in fact framed and were in operation. We are unable therefore, to agree with the High Court that appropriate rules were not in existence at the time when the demand was made. and on that account the demand was premature.

¶79

If services are provided. assuming that the Venkataramana temple either does not need the services, or does not obtain the

F .,

(I) (1961) Mys. L. J. 245.

¶89

CCMMR. RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS v. U. K. RAO (Shah, J.) 923-

¶90

A benefit of the services, the contribution would still be recoverable. We are also unable to ac.cept the argument raised that because therules were framed at a time when several different kinds of services were intended to be rendered and the Court later struck down certain provisions of the Act under which services wer~ to be rendered, the rules framed in 1955 were rendered inapplicable.

¶91

B The order passed by the High Court upholding the claim of the respondent-temple on this part of the case must therefore, be· set asicte.

¶92

The High Court has not investigated the question whether thereis a reasonable relation betweei;i the expenditure incurred by the c Goernment for providing services and the amounts intended to be colleted from the religious institutions for whose benefit the services are to be rendered. Since this is a matter to be decided on evidence, we do not propose to enter upon that question in this appeal.

¶93

The second question relates to the levy of audit fee. Under s. D 76(2) of the Act audit fee is not to be prescribed by rules : the Commissioner has to determine the fee for auditing the accounts of each religious endowment. The power of the Commissioner is subject to a three-fold restriction : (I) that the annual income of the religious institution for the relevant year preceding the year is Rs. 1,000/- or more; (2) that the fee does not exceed 1!% of the E inccme; and ( 3) that the fee is levied for meeting the cost of auditing 1 he accounts of the religious institution. In the present case; ccnditions (I) & (2) .are satisfied. But the High Court was of the view that the Commissiow· r had not determined the cost of auditing the accounts of the respondent-temple, and proceeded to observe :

¶94

F "It is sufficient to say that the demand made of thepetitioners' temple for the payment of a sum of Rs. 1, 162-83 nP towards the audit of its accounts in respect of the year 1963 fasli does not rest upon any determination made under Section 7 6(2) and is therefore one made without competence or the authority of law."

¶95

¶96

In so observing, in our judgment, the High Court erred. It was not the case, of the respondents in their petition that the Commis-· sioner had not determined the audit fee under s. 76(2). In paragraph-12 of the petition it was merely asserted that the fee determined by the Commissioner at the rate of H% of the income was H excessive. It is true that the Commissioner may not under s. 76(2) of the Act impose a flat rate of audit fee on the religious institutions governed by the provisions of the Act : he has to detennine audit fee for meeting ihe costs of auditing the accounts l!S a per-

¶97

924

¶98

[1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶99

SUPREME ·COURT llEPORTS

¶100

centage of the income of each religious institution. The Commissioner has w determine, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, the fee (being not more \han the maximum 'prescribed) for meeting the cost of audit of the institution. That implies that the Commissioner has to form an estimate of the reasonable cost which may be incurred in making an effective audit of the accounts of the religious institution, and ,to state it in terms of a percentage of !he income. The percentage of income levied as audit fee must of necessity.be based on an estimate, and the demand wil1 not be struck down merely because it turns out that the amount demanded is not precisely equivalent to the cost actually incurred for auditing the accounts.

¶101

Since the High Court has proceeded upon the ground of absence of determination by the Commissioner, which was never pleaded, and the High Court has not determined whether the audit fee demanded was in truth for meeting the cost of auditin,g, the accounts of the Venkataramana tempJe:, the order passed by the High Court in respect of this part of the case must also be set aside.

The order of the High Court is set aside and it is directed that the case do stand remanded to the High Court and that the High Court do dispose of the case according to law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment.

¶107

Costs of this ap!'eal will be costs in the High Court.

¶108

Y.P.

¶109

Case remanded.

¶110

•

Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. U. Krishna Rao & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. U. Krishna Rao & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnath Barman versus Dr. S. P. Raju & Anr.

Nathulal versus Phoolchand

Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. versus Collector of Customs and Central Excise Cochin and Ors.

Kanaiyalal Maneklal Chinai & Anr. versus State of Gujarat & Ors.

Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee versus Nilima Rani & Others

Dewan Singh versus Champat Singh & Ors.