A village panchayat levied tax on a company's factory buildings under its 1952 resolution relying on section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933. Holding that 'house' includes any building irrespective of user, and that the 1952 resolution was never superseded, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
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.
306
\ _
;. I
A TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD.
v.
GRAM PAN CHA YAT PIMPRI WA GHERE
August 23, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Bombay Village Panchayat Act (Bom. 6 of 1933), s. 89-'House' if includes 'building'. Interpretation of statutes-Ru/es as an aid-Use of Statement of objects and reasons.
The respondent is a village Panchayat constituted under the Bornb~y Village Panchayat Act, 1933. The Act initially empowered the Panchayat to levy tax on houses and lands as one of the ta·xes enumerated in s. 89 (2). In 1939, the section ·was amended and s. 89 (1) made it obligatory pn Panchayats to levy tax on houses and iands. The amending Act of 1947 provided that eve1y panchayat sha·ll levy a tax upon the owners or occupiers or 'houses including farm buildings and conferred power on the Panchayat to tax ihOps nnd hotels. The 1952-Amendment conferred power to tax premises where machinery is run by steam etc. In exercise of the powers under s. 89 the respondent, by a. resolution of :o 1952, imposed tax on houses within its jurisdiction. In 1954, s. 89 was amended and the word 'buildings' was substituted for the words 'houses' :rnd 'houses including farm buildings'. By a resolution of 1964, the respondent revised the tax on houses and also stated that for factories the tax would be at a concessional rate. The respondent demanded taxes on the appelJ;,nt's factory buildings for the years 1967 to 1970. The appellant challenged the levy unsuccessfully in the High Court. In appeal to this Court it was conteuded that : ( l) since it was only in 1954 that the word 'building' was substituted for the word 'house', the respondent had no power to impose taxes on the fa·ztory buildings by the 1952 resolution; and (2) even if the 1952-resolution authorised the levy. since it was replaced by the 1964-resolution, which was not valid as it was not passed in accordance with the Act and the rules, no tax could be levied either under the 1952-resolution or under the 1964-resolution.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) The word 'house' would in its ordinary sense include any iF 'building' irrespective of its user. Having regard to the nature of the word as used in taxing and municipal legislation, and the nature and purpose of the statute in the present case, it is manifest that the legislature used the word 'house' so that the Panchayat would be in a position to levy taxes on all buildings situated in the village. [319A]
(a) The word 'house' is not defined in the Act. Therefore, the word must be construed in that sense which people, conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it. To ascertain ·its meaning one must understand the subject-matter with respect to which it is used in a statute. The weight of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that the word 'house' is not restricted to a mere dwelling house, but also extends to a 'building which is med for business'. [316 E-F, 317DJ Yorkshire Insurance v. Clayton 8 Q.B.D. 424. Grant v. Langston 1900 A.C. 383, Daniel v. Coulsting 14 L.I.C. P 70, Folkes/one v. Woodward L.R. 15 Eq. 159, Wimbledon Urban District Coun::il v. Hastings 87 L.T.R. 118, Ravenseft Properties v. London Borough of Hl/lmgdon 1969 20 P & C.R. 483 and H Corpus Juris Secund11m Vol. 41 pages 364 and 365 referred to.
(b) The rules. framed under the Act and p1aced before the legislatnre for approval, are a legit!mate aid in the c?n;itru.ctton of the st~tute .as Con/em: poranea Expositio. (1) they made no d1st111cbon between dwelhng houses
TATA ENGINEERING V. GRAM PANCHAYAT 307
f I
and 'buildings', (ii) the 1934-rules used the word 'lands .and buildings' instead A of the words 'lands and houses'; and (iii) the 1943-rules defined 'house' as any 'building or set of buildings within the same enclosure'. (317}<] (c) The Act, in 1933, empowered a Panchayat to levy tax not only on houses but also on lands. It would be unsound to hold that a land which is admittedly taxable would be exempt when a factory is built upon it. (317 HJ (d) In the Amending Act of 1945 the expressions 'farm buildings' and 'houses' are used without distinction. (317 G] B, (e) The 1947-Amendment indicates that the tax was on the business of shops and hotels. and not on the houses where such business is run, and the 1952-Amendment introduces one more optional tax in s. 89(2) as different from the obligatory tax on houses and lands in s. 89 ( l). (318 E-F] (f) The words 'houses and lands' in s. 89 mea-n all buildings, including factory buildings. The substitution of the word 'buildings' in place of the word 'houses' made explicit what was implicit in the statute. From that amendC ment it could not be suggested that the factories would be included only within 'buildings' and not within 'houses'. (318 HJ (g) The Statement of objects and reasons is ordinarily not used as an a.id to the construction of a statute. It is sometimes referred to for the limited purpose of finding the object of the legislature in enacting the statute where all other methods of interpretation fail. (318 G] (2) Even if the 1964-resolution be invalid, the demands made by the respondent are valid and legal, because, (a) the 1952-resolution has not been superseded, and the levy in the present case was not pursua•nt tll the 1964resolution, but was pursuant to the 1952-resolution; and (b) s. 18~(8) of the 1959-Act, which repealed the 1933-Act indicates that any taxes imposed, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the 1959-Act, shall be deemed to have been levied under the 1959-Act and continue in force until superseded or modified and the tax in the present case is not inconsistent with the 1959Act. (319 C-V] ARGUMENTS For the Appellant : The first question which falls for determination of this Hon'ble Cmirt, for the purposes . of this appeal, is whether the expression 'house' as used in s. 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933 includes a factory building; and as such the Resolution dated the 24th February 1952 levies tax on factory building. The list of dates is given at the end of the Synopsis for ready F: reference. Brief facts are as follows : The Respondent is a Village Panchayat constituted under the prov1s1on8 of Bombay Village Panchayats Act (Act No. 6) of 1933. In exercise of the powers conferred on it for imposition of house taxes under s. 89 as amended, by a Resolution dated 24-2-1952, the Respondent imposed a house-tax on houses within its jurisdiction. G. By another Resolution dated the 10th Augnst 1964, the Respondents also increased the levy on the factory buildings. The petitioners have their factory buildings which were completed and occupied by about January 1968. After getting the necessary information about the value, costs of buildings etc. the respondent sent a notice dated 10th January 1969 making a demand for payment of taxes on the factory building for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69. This was on the basis of the Resolution <lated 10th August 1964 at concessional _rate of 25nP per Rupees H 100/-. Similar demands were also made subsequently for year 1969-70. The aggregate tax involved in this petition amounts to Rs. 1,34,763/- for the three years i.e. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. It is this demand for tax which is challenged in this petition.
F:
G.
H
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
308
\ '
.....___
There has been as many as 9 amendments to the Act.
Originally, the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1933 made impos1t1on of house-tax optional. By amending Act No. 18 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act of 1939 the house-tax was made compulsory.
B By Bombay Village Panchayats (2nd Amendment Act) 1945, the word "farm buildings" were included in regard to the three districts of Ratnagiri, Kanara and Colaba. By Bombay Village Panchayat Act· 9 of 1947 for the expression 'Houses including farm buildings' was made applicable without any distinction between the abovenamed three districts and the other districts in the State. By the same amending Act, an additional tax was included by adding s. 2(vi-a) viz. "tax on shops and hotels."
By Bombay Village Panchayat Amendment Act 9 of 1953 s. 2(vi-b) was ·C added providing for a tax on premises where machinery is run by steam, oil or electric power or manual labour for any trade or business and not for an agricultural, or domestic purpose. ·
· Then comes the most important ·amendment namely the Bombay Village Panchayats Amendment 1954 (Bombay Act 7 of 1954). This amendment substituted for the word 'house' the word 'building'. It a.lso substituted for· cl. 2(vi-a) and 2(vi-b) a new cl. 2(vi-a) providing for tax on the professions, trades and calling specified therein, namely, shop keeping and hotel keeping or any other trade or calling (other than agriculture which is carried on with the help of. machinery run by steam, oil electric power or manual power). The statements of objects and reasons for making the important change of the word "building" for the word "house" is quoted herein below :
"Under s. 89(1) of the Act, as it stands at present, village Panchayats cannot levy property tax on buildings other than dwelling houses. It is, therefore, proposed to empower them to levy such tax on all E buildings in their areas, irrespective of their use."
Two things emerge from the abov~ legislative history namely in 1952 when the Resolution dated 24th February 1952 was passed, the expression used in s. 89(1) was 'house'. When· the Resolution dated 10th August 1964 was passed, the expre5sion 'house' was no longer in the statute but a wider and comprehensive expression 'building'· was already inserted.
On the above facts- and position of Jaw, the appellant urges the following propositions :
I. Resolution dated 24th February 19 52 cannot be the basis for recovery of any taxes by the respondent on the factory buildings of the appellant inter-alia for the following reasons :-
(a) The plain reading of the resolution dated 24th. February 1952 clearly indicates that the levy was intended to be on dwelling house and not on G factory buildings.
(b) In a taxing statute, words used have to be consh ued as understood in common parlance in the context of the Act. ·
(c) Though several different meanings of the word 'h<;mse' ~re _given, the H word 'house' must be construed in the context of the Act m which 1t appears. In the context of the present Act, the house must mean as understood in common parlance as 'dwelling place'. This meaning also appears as the first meaning eiven in all dictionaries.
J
-·----------------------
-'""'-
30!)
TATA ENGINEERING V. GRAM PANCHAYAT
In 1933 in a village nobody could have said that a factory building means a house. Therefore. the expression "house ... must be given · its ordinary meaning as meaning a "dwelling house". (d) The Legislative History of Section 89, hich is set out -herinabove, clearly shows that all kinds of buildings including factory buildings wre not included in the expression 'house'. The Amendment of 1954 substituting the word 'building' for 'house'· takes the · ma"tter beyond any pale of doubt. It must be remembered that these are amendments to the same Act . and these Amending Acts clearly indicate the legislative expositions of the expression •house' used in the 1933-Act. It is weII,,established that later Acts should· be regarded as the legislative interpretation of the· former one. ·. (i) 1957 SCR page 121 at 13& & 139 l!Ciri Pfll.flld Shi1,-tishaitkar - v. A. D. Divikar. (ii) 1891 "(137) US 682at 692 Georg H. Cope v: Janet Cope: (iii) 1928 A·C. 143 Orn1and Investment Co. ·v. Bells. (iv) 1941 (315) U.S.A. 262 (Head Note H Great Northern Rly. v. U.S.A. (v) 1900 (!) Q.B. 156 at. 164 • & 165 Attorney · Genera/.· v. Clerksons. · ·(vi) [19551 2 SCR 603, 632 '°Bengal lmfnunity C;;,e". (vii) [19691 1 . - SCR I 310: • :in . Ghewar ·Chand . - v. Workers' Union. , ' (e)_ The High Court has obsetved . in ' its· Judgment as follows.'-. . . . · ThC ·object of the legislature in Cnacting s. 89 .was to enable- the Village Panchayat. to levy tax from such sources as -may be necessary for the proper ~ discharge by the Panchayat of its· duties under the Act. -, Having regard to the· nature of the word house as used in taxing legislation in England and this country; the legislature used the word house so that the ·village panchaya.!: would be in a position to levy taxes on all buildings situated in the village. ' . These observations are erroneous 'because ·the word_ house· as --used in the taxing legislation has been interpreted in England as meaning a dwelling holise and not as including every building. The High Court has: relied on three decisions for this purpose :- ·· ·' (i) 1906 Appeal Cases 299 · uwin v. End •. (ii) 87 I.aw Times Report:S· 118. WimbledOn U'rbtin ·vistriCt Council v. Hastings. . . - · (iii) 1900 A.C. 383 GtanJ v. Langston.
The authority of Wimbledon" Urban District Council 87 L.T.R. 118 has no bearing because it was not a case of taxing statute. It was under the Public Health Act and the definition of building in terms included a school building and . therefore,. it was_ he.Id that the nuisance in an overcrowded school came within the mischief of the Act and that the Act applied to school buildings also. It is important to remember that the decision in the casP Wimbledon Urban District Council was based on the decision in ·Reg. v. Mead (S9 J.P. lSO; 11 T.LR. 242). This was again a case under the Public Health - Act dealing with the overcrowding in a shelter house. (f) Both "the authorities namely, 1900 AC 383 Grant v. Langston as well as 1906 A.C. 299 Lewin_ v. End relied by the High Court accepted the position that the house niust be a dwelling house. If it is not so used, then the structure and the character of the building as a whole should be ~regarded in order to see whether it is fit for such use by any class or condition of _ persons in the ordinary way of living. Obviously, a factory building does not satisfy .this test.
A ·
B
c ··'
E
G
H
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
310
\
A II. The second question which arises is that even if the Resolution dated 24th February 1952 is held to be validly levying a tax on factory buildings it is admitted that another Resolution dated 10th August 1964 was also pa,,. ' by the Respondent though the Respondent relies only on the Resolution of 24th February 1952 and has conceded that the Resolution of 10th August 1964 is void and illegal for not having been passed in accordance with the Act and the Rule. The Resolution of 1964 clearly replaced and modified th. Resolution of 1952. If the Resolution of 1964 is illegal and void, the resolution of 1952 is not automatically revived. On the contrary, a fresh levy B then would have to be imposed. That not having been done, there is no. valid levy of tax on the factory building of the petitioners.
See [1963] Suppl. 2 SCR 435, 446 Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of Madras.
C
(Once the old Rule has been substituted by the new Rule, it ceases to exist and does not automatically got revived when the new rule is held to be invalid).
The above ratio equally applies to the earlier Resolution of 24th February 1952 which was replaced by resolution dated 10th August 1964.
S. 186(8) of 1958 Act (Bombay Act UI of 1959) provides as follows·:
any appointment, notification, notice, tax, fee, order, scheme, licence, permission, rule, by-law, or form made, issued, imposed or D granted in respect of the said villages and in force on the date of the commencement of this Act shall in so far as they are not inconsistent be deemed to have been made, issued, imposed or granted under this Act in respect of the village and shall continue in force until it is superseded or modified by any appointment, notification, notice, tax, fee, order, scheme, licence, permission, rule, by-law or form made, issued, imposed or granted under this Act;
This also shows that on passing of the resolution dated 10th August 1964, E the resolution dated 24th February 1952 ceased to be effective.
The Respondents rely on rules framed in 1938 but Rules cannot be ~ aid to the interpretation of the main Section.
The Respondents also relied on the Resolution dated 10th August 1964 and from the language thereof contend that factory buildings were treated as 'house'. Now in the first place in 1964 the word "House"-has already been substitued by the word "building" so when the respondents passed the resol u- F tion on 10th August 1964, it fixed two rates: one for all houses as is clearly indicated in the resolution at the rate of 40 paise for Rs. 100/- and other for factory buildings which was at the concessional rate. This, on the contrary, supports the submissions of the appellant that all houses were treated as one class of buildings and all factories were treated as other class of buildings.
The Respondents also rely on the meaning of the word 'house' given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary at item (17) as also on Corpus JuriS- SecU!ndu~ G Vol. 41 pp. 363, 364. However, every word has more than one meaning and it has to be construed in the context of the Act in which it apepar>. So construed in the context .of the present Act, the word 'house' cannot take in a factory building.
For tlie Respondent : The impugned levy of tax ·was imposed by the Resolution of the respondent Gram Panchayat dated 24-2-1952. This Resolution was passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the respondent by S. 89(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1933 (Bombay Act 6 of 1933) H as it stood in 19 52.
Though the Act of 1933 was repea,led by the Act of 1959 (Born. Act 3 of 1959), the levy remained in force. by vitrue of S. 186(8) of the 1959 Act.
311
A
f
TATA ENGINEERING V. GRAM PANCHAYAT
Appellants• only contention regarding this levy is that the word "h.ouses'' occuring in the phrase "Houses and land" in S. 89(1) of the 1933 Act does not take in buildings housing factories. but has the narrow meaning 1 ·d,velling houses", and hence the levy on its factory buildings is illegal.
The short question -~rhich, therefore, arises -for consideration is what W"6 the legislative intent in respect of the word "Houses" as used in S. 89 (1) of the 1933 Act. Was it used in the narrow sense of a dwelling house or in th wider sense of any building irrespective of the use to which it i5 put.
.B
The word "House" is not defined in the Act. The <lictionades relied on ·by the Appellant give various meanings of that word; but dictionary meaning:!! are not relevant in such C&Scs. The correct approacb is to construe the word · in "that 1ense which people conversant-with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it."
(1962] 1 SCR 279, 282 Rama'tar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ako/a [1962] 1 SCR Supp. 498 Motipur Zamindari Co. v.
c
The State of Bihar.
Though the word "house" has 5everal meaning in non-legal parlance in connection with taxing statutes, it has a definite meaning in legal parlance, namc:Iy "any building in the ordina~ sense irrespectivo of its user." -Grant v. Langston ( 1900 A.C. 383, 390 The ground fioo1; of a building not communicating with -the upper floor and used for business purposes was held to be a "house". (1906) A.C. 299, 303 last pMa-observations of Lord Robertson). - Stroud Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition. Vol. 2, page 1263 Item-(!~) (A brief report of the case of Rave11seft Properties vs. Lond•>fl Borough of · Hil/ingdon, decided by the Tribunal under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, appears in "Land Law, cases and Materials" by R. H. ~Iandsley and B. H. Bum. Third Edition p. 832 •. The relevant observaition _is ''The weight of judicial opinion appears to me to be conclusively in favour of tho view that the word "House• extends to a building which is used for business and should not be restricted to mere dwelling house." ·
D
E
F
The position in U.S.A. is ~sO the same :- Corpus Juris Seczmdum, Vol. 41, p. 364 (Ceil. 1) & p. 365. Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (West Publishing House)-p."'686.
There is important_ intrinsic evidence in the· present case to show tha.t at . the relevant time the concerned Legislature wais aware that the word "House" and "Building" were synonymous and interchangeable. The ·1933-Act empowers the Government to make rules for various purposes. These ·rules had to be placed before the Legislature for approval (or modification, if thought fit) before they could come into force. Under Cl. (n) of S-108 Govt. could · male rules for fixing the maximum rate of tax to be imposed under S. 89(1). · . Th~ .ru.le is framed by Government in this .respcCt on 18-12-1934 i.e. ie Jiately after passing the 1933-Act. The words used in rule- are ·lands, and •Buildings' in!.tead of 'land and houses·. These rules are a legitimate aid to --. construction of the statute as Conte1nporanea Expositio:.
G
H
(CraieS on Statute Law Vlth Editio1J p. 157; ~Iaxwell on l11terpretati'!11 ct! .Statutes lZth Edition p. 26.t).
4-1 I04SCl/76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
312
[1977] 1 !!.C.R.
A The rules framed on 18-1--43 defint "House" as "any building or eet of .buildings within the same enclosure".
In the amending Act of 19-45 and its statement of objects and reasons the expressions "farm-buildings" and "farm-houses" are used without distiltc&ion.
Although the 1933-Act waa amended it was not found necessary to chan,. the expression 'houses and lands" occuring in S. 89. That expression continued B unchanged till after 1952.
It is also worthy of note that the tax is not on houses alone but on lands as well. It is unthinkable that a land which is admittedly taxable would !>. intended to be exempt when a building housing a factory is built upon it.
Under the 1933-Act as initially enacted, S. 89 (I) conferred power (but imposed no obligation) upon Village Panchayats to levy any one of the taxed enumernted in Sub-S. (2). The first of these was the tax on "houses and C lands". It was thus optional. No tax was mentioned in S. 89(1).
By the 1939 amendment this scheme was changed. New S. 89(1) made it obligatory on Village Panchaya.ts to levy tax on houses and lands whicla were not subject to payment of agricultural assessment. The six other taxes which were optional were retained in S. 89(2). This clearly shows that those taxes were other than the tax on houses and lands (when a tax on shops and hotels came to be added to this list as (vi-a) it was a tax on shop-busine~ and hotel-business and not on the houses where such business was run. This cu D also be seen from s. 124 of the 1949-Act which repea.led the 1933-Act. Tho next amendment of 1945 split up S. 89(1), to make separate provision for taking farm buildings in the three districts of Kolaba, Ratnagiri and Kanara where farm buildings used to be built on agricultural la.nd and were thus C!Qping assessment. '
Additions were similarly made to the list of taxes in S. 89 (2) from ih• to time and were all taxes of a different tind from the obligatory tax oa houses and lands provided for in S. 89 ( 1).
The L.A. Bill No. 51 of 1952 was passed in 1953 i.e. after the le?Y m question in this Ca!!e had been already imposed and further, add only to the list in S. 89 (2) one more kind of tu different from the obligatory tax o• "houses A: lands".
The last amendment is of 1954. This substitues the word "Buildings" for the word "houses' in S. 89 (1). The amendment is not relevant as it - made much after 24-2-52 when the impugned levy was imposed. What is relied on by the appellant is the mention in the statement of objects and reMons viz. ' that under S. 89 ( 1) of the Act as it the11. stood, Village Panchayats could aot levy tax on buildings.
Now, it is well settled that statement of objects and reasons for a gi?e• statute cannot be used 36 aid to the construction of that statute. The statement can be referred to for the limited purpose of finding the ob)ect of the Legislature In enacting that statute when all methods of interpretation fail. Even for this • enacted more than twenty years limited purpose, the statement of objects and reasons for an amending la.ter cannot be looked into when the questioa Act is of construction of the original Act enacted more than 20 years earlier. Apart from this, the Contemporm~a Expositio provided by the Rules referred to earlier which are a legitimate aid to construction of the original Act, must prevail over and outweigh the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendmg Act of 1954.
The Resolution of 10th August 1964 did not supersede or modify the RCM1luH tion dated 24-2-52. Accorc.!ing to the appellants own case as urged before the High Court and accepted by it, the resolution is void. It can, therefore, be of no effect. No levy was actually imposed in pursuance of that reso!Utiou, Further, even accordi.ns to that reeolution, the tu on factory buildilll!ll was
TATA ENGINEERING V. GRAM PANCHAYAT (Ray, C.J.) 313
aot to be raised. The bills served on the appellant and the demand made A from it, ill according to the levy ynder the resolution of 2-4-2-1952.
The appellant's contention in this respect is, therefore, untenable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2238 of 1969.
(Frona the Judgment and order dated 8-9-1969 of the Bombay Hi&h Court in Special Civil Application No. 1270/69).
B
M. C. Bhandare, !. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur, K. !. John and Shri Narain for the Appellant.
B. D. Bal, M. S. Narasimhan and R. B. Datar for the Respondent.
RAY, C. J.-This appeal by certificate turns on the meaning of the cu:pression "hoooe" as used in section 89 of the Bombay Village c Panchayat Act, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
-{
The respondent is a village Panchayat constituted under the proYisions of the Act. In exercise of powers conferred on it for impo!ition of taxes on houses under section 89 of the Act, the respondent by a resolution dated 24 February, 1952 imp~ed tax on houses within its jurisdiction. The resolution of 24 Ferbruary, 1952 decided to levy a tax on house at the rate of Annas -/4/- for every Rs. 10(). The resolution further decided that the basis for valuation for a room of old house would be Rs. 100/-, for a room of new house Rs. 125/aad for Verandah (Padvi) Rs. 251-.
By another resolution dated 10 August, 1964 the re-.;pondent revised the tax on house at the rate of 40 nP. for Rs. 100/Tho rosolution further said that for factories as a concession the tax would bo 25 nP for Rs. 1001- on capital value.
The appellant has factory buildings. The respondent by a notice dated 10 January, 1969 made a demand of taxes on the factory building of the appellant for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The respondent charged at the rate of 25 nP for Rs. 1001-. The respondent did not charge the appellant at the rate of 40 nP for Rs. 100/- which was the increased rate pursuant to the resolution dated 10 August, 1964. The respondent thereafter made a demand in the year 1969-70. The aureiate tax involved in this appeal comes to Rs. 1,34,763/" for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70.
The appellant contended that in 1952 when the resolution was passed by the respondent levying taxes on houses the respondent was not empowered to tax factory buildings. The principal reason advanced by the appellant is that only in 1954 the word "building" was substituted for the word "house", and, therefore, the respondent would have no power to impose taxes on the factory buildings by tne resolution in 1952.
The other contention on behalf of the appellant is that if the resolution dated 24 February, 1952 be held to be valid levying a tax on factory premises the resolution was replaced by the resolution of 10 August, 1964. Here the contention of the appellant is that the resolution of 1964 is not valid because it was not passed in accordance with
D
'E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
The provisions contained in section 89 ot the Act are as follows:-
B
"Levy of taxes and fees by Panchayat : ( 1) Every Panchayat shall levy in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed such of the taxes or fees specified in sub-section (2) as may be necessary for the proper discharge by the Panchayat of its duties under this Act.
(2) Taxes or fees which are leviable by '' Panchayat under sub-section ( 1) are:-
( i) a tax upon the owners or occupiers of houses and c lands within the limits of the village;
(ii) a pilgrim tax;
(iii) a tax on fairs and festivals,
(iv) a tax on sales of goods;
(v) octroi;
D
(vi) a tax on marriages, adoptions and feasts;
(vii) any other tax which may have been approved by the district local board and sanctioned by Government." Section 89 of the Act was amended by Amendment Act No. 1 is of 1939 as follows :-
E ("a) For sub-section ( 1) the following shall be substituted, namely:-
(1) Every panchayat shall levy a tax upon the owners or occupiers of houses and lands which are not subject to payment of agricultural assessment within the limits of the village in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed. The rules made for the levy of such tax may provide that F the payment of such tax may be made either in cash or by the rendering of work and labour."
Sub-section (2) was amended as follows :
"It shall be competent to a panchayat to levy all or any of: the taxes or fees at such rates and in such manner as may be G prescribed, namely, clause (i) shall be deleted."
In 1945 section 89 was amended as follows:
Sub-section (1) of section 89 was substituted by the following :
'(1) Every panchayat, other than a panchayat, in the districts of Kolaba, Ratnagiri and Canara, shall levy a tax upon the owners or occupiers of houses and lands which are not H subject to payment of agricultural assessment within the limits of the village in such manner and at such rates as mar be prescribed.
"TATA ENGINEERING V. GRAM PANCHAYAT (Ray, C.J.)
315
{
\
'(IA) Every panchayat in the districts of Kolaba, Ratnagiri and Kanara shall levy a tax upGn the owners or occupiern of bouses including farm buildings whether or not subject to payment of agricultural assessment and of lands which are not subject to payment of agricultural assessment, within the limits of the village in such manner and at such rates as may 'be prescribed. ( 1 B) The rules made for the levy of the tax specified in subsection (1) and (lA) may provide that the payment of such lax may be made either in cash or by the rendering of work ·and labour." In 1947 section 89 was amended as follows :- " ( 1) Every panchayat shall levy a tax upon the owners or occupiers of houses including farm buildings whether or not subject to payment of agricultural assessment and of land which are not subject to payment of agriculural assessment, within the limits of the village, in such manner, at such rates :and subject to isuch exemptions as may be prescribed. <(lA) Where an owner of a house or land has left the village or cannot otherwise be found, any person to whom such house ·or land hais been transferred shall be liable for tbe tax Jeviable under sub-section ( 1) from such owner. OB) The rules made for the levy of the tax specified in subsection ( 1) may provide that the payment of such tax may be made either in cash or by rendering of work and labour." Again, in 1947 in sub-section (2) after clause (vi) the following new clause was inserted : "(vi) (a) a tax on shops and hotels". In 1_952 section 89(2) (vi) (b) was amended as follows:"a tax on premises where machinery is run by steam, oil, electric power or manual labour for any trade or business and not for an agricultural or domestic purpose." In 1954 section 89 was amended and the word "buildings" was substituted for the words "houses including farm buildings" in subsection "( 1) thereof. Again in sub-section ( lA) of section 89 for the word "home" wherever it occurred the word "building" was substituted. In sub-section (2) of section 89 for clauses (vi) (a) and (b) the following clause was substituted :- " (vi) (a) subject to the provisions of Article 2 7 6 of the Constitution, a tax on the following professions, trades and calling, namely :- (a) shop keeping and hotel keeping; (b) any trade or calling (other than agriculture which is carried on with the help of machinery run by steam, oil, electric power or manual labour." In 1959 the Act was repealed. The Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 being Act No. III of 1959 came into existence. The
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A relevant section of the 1959 Act necssary for the purpose of the present appeal is section 186(8) which is as follows:-
"186. Notwithstanding the repeal of the said laws and the foregoini provisions of this Act :
(8) any appointment, notification, notice, tax, fee, order, scheme, licence, permission, rule, by-law, or form made, B issued, imposed, or granted in respect of the said villages- and in force on the date of the commencement of this Act shall in so far as they are not inconsistent be deemed to have been made, issued, imposed or granted under this Act in respect of the village and shall continue in force until it is supenseded or modified by any appointment, notification, notice, tax, fee, order, scheme, licence, permission, rule, by-law or form c made, issued, imposed or granted under this Act".
c
There is no dispute that the resolution of 1952 was validly passed in exercise of powers conferred on the respondent by section 89 ( 1) of the Act. The principal contention of the appellant is that the word "house" means dwelling house. The appellant relied on t!he decision in Wimbledon Urban District Council v. Hastings(') and Lewin v. D End(2 ) in support of the proposition that the expression "hO".!!C" means a dwelling house. The appellant sought to support the contention by reference to the fact that the word "house" which occurred in section 89 of the Act was substituted by the word "building" in 1954 indicating that factory buildings would not be within the meanin1 of the word "house".
The word "house" is not defined in the Act. This Court in Ram- E avtar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola(1 ) said that the correct approach is to construe the word in that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. Counsel for the respondent rightly contended that the word "house" would in its ordinary sense include any building irrespective of its uaer. To ascertain the meaning of the word "house" one mu11t understand the subject matter with respect to which it is u11ed in order to 1trrive at the F sense in which it is employed in a statute. Formerly, houses were built so that each house occupied a 11eparate site. In modern timCi a practice hlll grown up of putting separate houses one above the other. They art built in separate flats or storeys. For legal and ordinary purp011e11 they are 11eparate houses. Each is ileparately let and separately occupied. One haa no connection with those above or below, except in 110 far u it may derive iupport from those below instead of from the ground u in G the ca5e of ordinary houses (See Yorkshire Insurance v. ClaytonU) and Grant v. Langston(").
H
It may be 11tated generally that the word "house" is a 11tructure of a penunent character. It is 11tructurally 11evered from other tenements. It ii not necoiiary that a house if adapted for residential purp011e11 ihould . be actually dwelt in [See Daniel v. Coulsting(G) ]. A building iu
(1) 117 Law Times Reports 118. (2) [1906] A.C. 299. (3) [1962] l S.C.R. 279. C•> 8 Q.B.D. '42'4. (5) [1900] A.C. 383. (6) 14 L.J.C.P. 70.
TATA ENGINEERING V. GRAM PANCHAYAT (Ray, C.J.)
. 317
Covent Garden had formerly been a dwelling house but was converted into a fruit store warehouse and offices in which no one slept and wai held to be a "house" as regards assessment to the rector's rate within the provisions of the relevant &tatute.
The idea of the varietieli of meaningg can be had from the 1mbject matter of the statute. A consecrated church was treated as a house iu; regard the Building Line which a local authority has a right to prescribe. [See Folkestone v. Woodward(')]. Under the Public Health Act; 1.875 "house" was not limited to an ordinary dwelling house and included a day school having no boarders and where none of the staff resided. See Wimbledon v. Hastings (supra). Under the compulsory Purchase Act, 1965 "house" has been extended to a building which is used for business purposei and iii not restricted to mere dwelling houses (See Ravenseft Properties v. London Borough of Hillingdon(2 ). ·
A
B
C
The weight of judicial opinion is conclusively in favour of the view that the word "house" extends to a building which is used for businelii and should not be restricted to a mere dwelling house (See Land Law, Cases and Materials by R. H. Mandsley and E. H. Burn Third Edition, p. 832).
D
In Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 41 page 364 it is said that in a legal sense, the word "house" is more comprehensive, but it is not limited to a structure designed for human habitation, and may mean a building or shed intended or used as a habitation or shelter for animals of any kind, a building in the ordinary sense or any building, edifice, or structure inclosed with walls and covered, regardless of the fact of human habitation. Again in Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 41 page 365 it is ll&id that under particular circumstances, the term has been held equivalent to and interchangeable or synonymous with "building'', "dwelling" and "dwelling house" and liometimes "premises". ,
The 1952 reiolution of the Gram Panchayat in the prc;sent case is to be undentood in the background of the provisions contained in liection 89 of the Act and the rules framed under 11ection 108 of the Act. The ruleii were placed before the legiilature for approval. The rules framed in 1934 used. the words "lands and buildings" instead of the wordii "landii and houses". The rules are a legitimate aid to construction of the statute as Contemporanea Expositio (See Craies on Statute Law 6th Edillion p. 157) .
. 'f.he rul~ rarned in 1943 defined "house" as any building or set oi' buildmgs w1thm the same enclosure. In the Amending Act of 1945 the ei:prCllllions "farm buildings" and "houses" are used without distinction. The Act in 1933. conferred power upon the Pnchayat to levy tax upon ownen or occupiers of housei and lands. This expression "houses and lan~" continued unchanged till the year 1952. It is significant that the tax Ii not on houseii alone but on lands as well. It jg unsound to hold that a land which is admittedly taxable would be intended to be exempt when a building housing a factory is built upon it. The Act as initially (t) L.R. 15 Eq. 159. · (2) [1969] 20 P &. C.R. <483.
E
F
G
H
[1977] 1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
318
A enacted conferred power upon the Panchayat to levy any one of the taxes enumerated in sub-section (2). The first of these was tax on houses and lands. Section 89 (1) of the Act as it stood <liq not mention any particular tax. The 1939 Amendment changed the scheme. Section 89(1) of the Act made it obligatory on Panchayats to levy tax on houses and lands. In 1933 section 89(1) of the Act conferred optional power on Panchayats to levy taxes. In 1939 section 89(1) of the Act made it B compulsory for Panchayats to levy tax on owners or occupiers of hou~es and lands which are not subject to payment of agricultural assessment. The six other taxes mentioned in section 89(2) of the Act starting from clauses (ii) to (vii) namely, a pilgrim tax, a tax on fairs and festivals; a tax on sales of goods, octroi; a tax on marriages, adoptions and feazts; and any other tax which may have been approved by the district local board and sanctioned by Government were made optional. A tax upon C owners or occupiers on houses and lands which figures in clause (i) of section 89(2) of the Act was deleted, by the Amendment Act of 1939 inasmuch as taxes on houses and lands became a compulsory power of taxation under section 89 ( 1) of the Act.
Reference may be made to the addition of clause (vi) (a) in section 89(2) of the Act which was introduced in 1947 as conferring power on D Panchayats to levy tax on shops and hotels. This indicates that the tax was on the business of shops and the business of hotel. The tax was not on the houses where such business was run. Section 124 of the 1959 Act which came in place of section 89 of the Act shows that "8hop keeping" and "hotel keeping" are considered to be trades and callings.
.~ ... - .
The amendment of the year 1945 shows that a separate provision was made for taxing farm buildings in three districts of Colaba, RatnaE giri and Kanara, where farm buildings were constructed on agricultural land. The idea was to bring such farm buildings within the province of assessment.
The amendment in 1952 added a tax on premises where machinery is run by steam, oil, electric power or manual labour in trade or business and not for agricultural or domestic purposes. This addition of clau3e F (vi) (b) to section 89(2) of the Act illustrates one more kind of optional tax as different from obligatory tax on houses and lands within section 89 ( :() of the Act.
The amendment of 1954 where the word "building" was substituted for the word "house" does not help the appellant to suggest that factories will be included only within buildings and not within houses. The appellant referred to statement of objects and reasons which said that the G village panchayat could not levy a tax on buildings, and, therefore, the word "buildings" was substituted for the word "houses". The statement of objects and reasons is ordinarily not used as aid to construction of a statute. A statement is sometimes referred to for the limited purposes of finding the object of the legislature in enacting the statute where all other methods of interpretation fail.
The words "houses and lands" as used in section 89 of the Act mean H all buildings, and factory buildings would be included within that meaning. The use of the expression "buildings" in place of the words "homes including farm buildings" made explicit what was implicit in the statute.
TATA ENGINEERING V. GRAM PANCHAYAT (Ray, C.J.) 319
A
/
Having regard to the nature of the word "houses" as used in taxing legislations and municipal legislation and the nature and purposes of the statute in the present case it is manifest that the leislature ~~ed the wrd "house" so that the village panchayat would be m a pos11:1on to levy taxes on all buildings situated in the village. The rule makers made no distinction between the dwelling houses and buildings.
The second contention of the appellant is unacceptable. The resolu-. tion of 10 August, 1964 did not supersede or modify the resolution of 24 February, 1952. No levy was actually imposed pursuant to the resolution of 10 August, 1964. Further the bills served on the appellant were pursuant to the levies imposed under the resolution of 24 February 19~2. In 1964 a tax on factory buildings was not raised. The tax on houses was raised. Even if the resolution of 10 August, 1964 be invalid the demands made by the respondent under the 1952 resolution are valid and legal for two reasons. First, the resolution of 1952 has never been superseded; and second, section 186(8) of the 1959 Act indicates that any tax imposed shall in so far as they are not inconsistent be deemed to have been made under the 1959 Act shall continue in force until they are superseded or modified. There is nothing to show that the tax is inconsistent with the 1959 Act, nor was it argued to be so.
For these reasons the contentions of the appellant fail. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
B
C
D
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the word 'house' in section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933 includes factory buildings for purposes of the panchayat tax.
Whether an allegedly invalid 1964 resolution superseded the 1952 resolution so that no valid levy survived.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramavtar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, AkolaApplied¶170
[1962] 1 S.C.R. 279 · Who else cites this
Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. ClaytonReferred¶170
8 Q.B.D. 424
Grant v. LangstonRelied on¶170
[1900] A.C. 383
Daniel v. CoulstingReferred¶172
14 L.J.C.P. 70
Folkestone v. WoodwardReferred¶177
L.R. 15 Eq. 159
Wimbledon Urban District Council v. HastingsRelied on¶169
87 Law Times Reports 118
Ravenseft Properties Ltd. v. London Borough of HillingdonReferred¶177
[1969] 20 P & C.R. 483
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.
Gram Panchayat Pimpri Waghere
A. N. Ray
M. H. Beg
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
