Appellants challenged a Rs. 200 profession tax levied by Ballabgarh Panchayat Samiti under section 76 of the 1961 Act while already paying Rs. 250 to Haryana State, contending Article 276(2)'s Rs. 250 limit applied collectively to all authorities. The Supreme Court held 'or' is disjunctive and each authority may levy up to Rs. 250.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| r. I I |
827 KAMTAPRASADAGGARWAL ETC V, . EXECUTIVE OffiCER,BALLABGARH&ANR.. _December_20,1973 |
··~ i. |
|---|---|---|
| (A.N.RAY,C.J., H.R.KJ-sA,K.K.MATIIEW AND_P._N.BHAGWAT[,JJ.) •A.AtAG!R!S\VAM _Comtirutiollojlntlia,19SO,Art._27~cop_1_I _o/ the omhorities mcntio11tdInArticle can lmr>o:e _~a-Yl..th.r.sroreand••ell. :x_uptoa l•m•tof_IU.258• |
||
| 0 | .UnderthePunjabProfessions,TrllesCallio · ACt 156,nprofcs.siontaxonat:r.d<~>Cal""g.Employment Taxaooo Rs.'2s0pernnum,badbeena nd_Wlls_beingcollc.;cubl«ttoalll:lXlll!umof ThePanchayat.S:uniti,Ballbgorb,inHr•11.1.;.,ueday;;,staofH31y.,... 10lcVVPIO(CSSIOOaJ t:JXntthemaximumrate_of_fU.200 e JlII. IDI<oded totheScbcdulcdlPCCifiedundertheGram Paocbayats.rru:J:lll"dl.J"'ceo, Act. 196.1. Toppclla.nts • .inritpelit.ions io thethghCourt,"co'::;nded thatthe.tmposttton.wastnVtolaltonofArticle 276orthe Constitution ;0thu them:u.tmumltmttof·R>.2SOI- meot•oaedi_n theArti<leapplieseorb' rotaltty_ot_thetaxrecoveredbyall.thautborrlles mentionedintbeArticle tal;cnlogetber.TiteH11lhCourtdtSmi>Sedthepetitions. · Dismissintheppc:llstothisCouct, HELD:TbeHishCourtW:ISrigbtinreachioc thecoD<Iusioo that tho Sl4teaswellstheauthoritiesmentionedintheArticlecancJchimp01e r;uuptoalimitofRs.250. [830G-HJ |
|
| [ | ._(I)_Thepower_o(_tileSt.ltotolevytheU.tisderivedfromEntry60of ti,tl!o f litoV!lSchedulerotl.teCorurituriandealin~"'rbta.tesanprofco· >H.>Il'o,lr...Jes,cal!in!;Oandemployments.TheSlaLotureistherefore, competenttolegislatennJlevy'"''""o n professions. lr.IJes and employment< ••d""'Yalsobylaw,conferasimilarauthorityonaloc:>lauthority.[828F} 12)Ataxonprofessioncanbeimposedif ap<oooc:mesan• prol033ion'" Su.:har;uonpcofe,;ion,.irrc::spccri•·cofthoquouonofl.QCOtD<.(829G) |
|
| 13)The_wor<.ls_intheArticlethatll•e total amount payoble to tlte State or_toaoyoneMunicipality,oi.trict Bo:<Id.Loco!oordorloc-aloutbonrr c:nnotmeanthatthewnrd'or'isusedinacoojunch•"Cscnstassubstttute _lor_theword •and'.Thisisclearfromthe proruot<?"rtic!e27612)whic 0 11. provi<Jc,thatifbeforetheromruenmentofthe Consurutton any State or • Y· authorityhodimpo>edatuxearningthe limitofRs. 1 25~'~·c<br>po": conrinue;andtblsindicatesrhntbothc:>ntaxscpanre_Y_to ctml . ·_: hyrhcArticle.[830Ill |
||
| ( , . tlt ,\rriclearcuseJiojuxt>PQSirioo .4)Thewor<U'aoyoneperson 1R e · rsanmoy been.gaJcJ 1Htbaoyonemunicir>ality e tc. One nnd1117sm,e6nodtheremaybo nmorethnnoneortheitemssuge_,tcdm /~rd"tot.U"rtlate:s_to_2• '"'PO'i.tiouofto.tonmorethanone•!emit ;;;;;hc,.itiesputto&<ther. (830D} ;,ruthonty levyin~variousta:tts und notto:l • coedR•'<01- ascontendc4 ($)Ifthetotal_ot_thel:UNshould001ex;. ayiq"profes<ioD'Itaxof byUtenppellanttlwillmeoathat•faI'ConPonhimasimilortox_onlY_ K,,HlllotheStatethe!<JC'IauthortiYcant:;'.tba!IOmalau• consequcnc:cs, utothebalanceofRs.t0t1.Tbi."!'uuldleae ,.,.;..<ilbloweriowme•. na><·lyfu)onoufthenutlto ririe• willhove 1and'7b)ifone outhorilvwnl .,htlatho,ewithhirherincom..woll('ca~.lo<rint the'"imPo"d_bv_the . . •mno,c •tuof Ute h:l!on<e•umleft •. terC\tbe r:t..<es. {830 FJ : ... Stutc,ullliteotherputborilics01aynottmpaso |
'828 SUPREME COURT RBPOilTS [1974] 2 s.c.R. .CrviL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos. 2427·2428j6!S A , From the Judgment and Order dated tlte 25th August, 1967 and ~7th May 1968 of the Punjab nnd Huryana High Court in C.W. Nos . .355 and 354 of 1967. Brlj Bans Bans Kishore and M. M. Kshatrya, for the appellants. 8
Brlj Bans Bans Kishore and M. M. Kshatrya, for the appellants. S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nacardja, M. Qumniarudclin and Vinocl Dlrawan, .for respondents No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·
RAY, C.J.-These appeals are by certificate from the judgment ·dated 17 May, 1967 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The appellants in writ petitions in the High Court challenged the legality of notices issued by the Executive Authority, Ballabgarh Panchayat Samiti claiming Rs. 200/- on account of profession tax for the year 1963-64. The notice was issued under section 76 cif th~ Gram Panchnyat Snmitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 referred to us .the 1961 Act. The appellants contended that the claim under section 76 of the 1961 Act was in violation of Article 276 of the Constitution because a similar professional tax on a graded scale subject to a maximum limit of Rs. 250/- per annum had been and was being collected by the" State of Harynna. ·
The Full Bench of the High Court upheld the contention of the respondents that the recoveries can be made by each one of the authorities mentioned in Article 276 of the Constitution to u maximum sum of Rs. 250/· per annum.
D E
The power of the State to levy tax is derived from Entry 60 of List IJ in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Entry speaks of taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments. The State legislature is, therefore, competent to legislate and levy taxes on professions, trades and employmedts. The State legislature may also by Jaw confer a similar authority on a Municipality, District Board, Local Board or other local authority.
The appellants contended that the maximum limit of· Rs. 250/mentioned in Article 276 applies to the totality of the tax recovered by all the authorities mentioned in the Article taken together. It was said that each authority could not levy tax up to a limit of .Rs. 250/-. It was said th;lt the opening and the concluding portions of Artich: 276(2) should be construed conjunctively to repr.esent the total amount payable in respect of any person to the authorities enumerated in the Article by way of taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments not exceeding Rs. 250;: per annum.
H
The Punjab Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Taxa~ion Act, 1956 referred to as the 1956 Act by section 3 imposed liabi-
K .. P. AGGAR.WAL v~ EXECUTIVE OFFICER (Ray, C.J.) 829
[1974] 2 s.c.R.
830
SUPREME COUll T REPORTS
A.
tradel, callings and employments by the State, Municipality or any A. other authority should not exceed Rs. 250/- per annum. It was said that Ute words "total ainount by way of taxes'' shall not exceed s. 250/-. That is ttally misreading the Article. It cannot be de· med that the State Legislature has power to impose taxes. The words in Artical 276 that the total amount payable to the State or to any one Municipality, District Board, local board or other local authority cannot mean that the word 'or' is used in a conjunctive sense as a sub~ B stitute fo~ the word. 'and'. The word 'or' is used in a disjunctive sense. The prov1so to Arucle 276(2) not only supports that construction but also makes the provision clear. In the proviso to Article 276(2) h is mentioned that if before the ·commencement of the Constitutiop. any State or any municipal board or authority had imposed a tax .exceeding the limit of Rll. 250/~ such tax may continue. Therefore, when the c· proviso speaks of any State or any such municipality it indicates that . both can tax separately to the- limit imposed by the Article.
Again, the language of Article 276(2) shows that the Constitu~ tion · uses the words "any one person" in juxtaposition with any one municipality, district board, local board or other authority. The provisions are clear in their effect that the word "or" occurring between the words "the State" and the words "to any one municipality" cannot be. read as the word "and" in a conjunctive sense. .
D
The words "the total amount payable in respect of any one person to the State or to any one municipality, district board, local board or other authority" mean that tax of and up to the sum of Rs. 250/- can be imposed by any one of the. authorities mentioned. If the Consti-· tution wanted the total taxes to be imposed by the State and other authorities to be Rs. 250/- the Constitution would have said that the total amoun·t payable in respect of any one person by way of tax on professions, trades, callings and other employments shall not exceed Rs. 250/- per annum whether imposed by the State, municipality, district board, local board or other local authority. Further, if the total of the taxes be a sum of Rs. 250/- as contended for by counsel for the appellants it will mean that if a person is paying professional tax of Rs. 150/- to the Ste, the local authority can impose on hi11l a similar tax up to the balance sum of Rs. 100/That may lead to two consequences. One is that one of the authorities will have to tax persons with lower income while those with higer income will escape any payment of :tax. The other is that if one authority will impose a tax of the balance sum left after considering the antount imposed by the State all the au•horities may not impose t9.xes. That will be entire-. Jy a wrong construction. The High Court was right in reaching the conclusion that the State as well as the authorities mentioned in Article 276 of the Constitution can each impose tax up to a limit of Rs. 250/, One arid the same person may be engaged iri more than one of the items suggested in Article 276, namely, professions, trades, callings and employments. Such imposition of tax on more than one item in respect of one and the same person cannot be anything ibut taxes. The word· "total" relates to an authority levying various taxes and not to all authorities put together.
E
F
G
H
K, P. AGGAR.W~L v. EXECUTIVE OFPICER. (RQ)', C.l.) 8 31
A For the1e reasons the judpent .of the Hip Court is upheld. Thl appeal• are, therefore, dilmialed. The parties will pay and bear their own costs as they did in the High Court. ·
Appeals dismissed.
B
V.P.S.
13 -748SCI/74
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Rs. 250 per annum ceiling in Article 276(2) caps the total professional tax levied by the State and all local authorities taken together, or applies to each authority separately.
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Kamtaprasad Aggarwal and others
Executive Officer, Ballabgarh Panchayat Samiti
Respondent No. 2
A.N. Ray
H.R. Khanna
K.K. Mathew
P.N. Bhagwati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
