Skip to content


V. Pattabhiraman Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. Nos. 2835, 2947 and 3843 etc. of 1967 and 11, 15 and 16 etc. of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Mad61
ActsMadras Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 - Sections 1(2); Government of Ireland Act, 1920; Finance Act, 1965 - Sections 3; C.P. Motor Spirit Act, 1939; Government of India Act, 1935; Bombay Finance (Amendment) Act, 1939; Madras District Municipalities Act - Sections 81(3); Madras City Land Revenue Act, 1851; Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 4; Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1963; Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921; Punjab Urban immovable Property Tax Act; Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925; Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957; Devolution Rules, 1920; Schedule Taxes Rules; Madras Urban Land Tax Rules, 1963 - Rule 4; Constitution of India - Articles 13, 14, 19, 19(1), 19(5), 22(7), 31, 31(2), 31(5), 39, 226, 246, 246(1), 261, 265, 276, 276(1)
AppellantV. Pattabhiraman
RespondentThe Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, ;north Madras (North West) Ayanavaram and ors.
Excerpt:
constitution - validity of tax - articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) of constitution of india, section 1 (2) of madras urban land tax act, 1966, government of ireland act, 1920, section 3 of finance act, 1965, motor spirit act, 1939 and bombay finance (amendment) act, 1939 - when validity of tax impugned as violative of article 14 court cannot rest content with apparent tenor and language of statute - not phraseology that governs matter but effect of law - in present case tax levied at fault rate of market value irrespective of whether owner of urban land makes any income or no income - vice making tax burden fall unequally is in absence of suitable guidelines for estimating value of urban land for taxation purposes - ascertainment of market value of urban land as provided under section 6 without.....order:--137. by virtue of the opinions of the majority of the full bench, section 6 of madras act xii of 1966 must be struck down, as violative of articles 19(1) and 14 of the constitution of india. it follows that all the proceedings before us under article 226 of the constitution will have to be allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.138. petitions allowed.
Judgment:
ORDER

:--

137. By virtue of the opinions of the majority of the full Bench, Section 6 of Madras Act XII of 1966 must be struck down, as violative of Articles 19(1) and 14 of the Constitution of India. It follows that all the proceedings before us under Article 226 of the Constitution will have to be allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.

138. Petitions allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //