Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 739 (MP)

Mohanlal v. State of M. P.

2003-05-25

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
JUDGMENT In this petition the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 2.1.1997 (Annexure-P/4), issued by the Municipality, Sanawad, District Khargone, on the ground that the item 'Cur' is neither manufactured nor produced in the town of Sanawad, as such, the Municipality cannot impose any Terminal Tax. The petitioner has also chal1e.nged that edible oil has been exempted from the Terminal Tax by Annexure-P-3, which is the Circular of the State Government dated 15.12.1995. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Terminal Tax can only be imposed on those articles which are produced within the Municipal limits of Sanawad and exported during the course of Sale and, therefore, prayed for quashment of the impugned notification (Annexure P-4). In reply, submission of the Municipality was that the petitioners are traders dealing in Cur, oil and grocery aI1icles. It was further submitted that the oil is produced by four mills situated in the town and one of the mills belongs to the petitioner No.1 himself. It was further submitted by the Municipality that the Cur is also being produced and manufactured in the area therefore, the Municipality is having every right to recover tax by resolution. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 further submitted that this case is fully covered by the decision reported in Smt. Meera Khandelwal v. State of M.P. and others [ 1997 (I) JLJ 402 ] and another decision in Chief Municipal Officer, Kymore v. Etemit Everest Ltel. and another reported in 2000 (2) MPLJ 291 . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Meera Khandelwal (supra) has held as under -"So far as the validity of Section 129 of the Act of 1961 vis-a-vis Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution is concerned, that is without any basis., In order to augment the revenue of the Municipal Council, taxation is necessary. Municipal Councils are, as a matter of fact, constituted to provide necessary facilities to the area. They cannot survive on simple grants from the State. They have to explore their own sources for increasing their revenue so as to provide necessary municipal facilities to the residents of their area. Municipal Councils are, as a matter of fact, constituted to provide necessary facilities to the area. They cannot survive on simple grants from the State. They have to explore their own sources for increasing their revenue so as to provide necessary municipal facilities to the residents of their area. Therefore, this was one of the sources available to the Municipal Councils as provided under sections 126 & 127 of the Act, 1961. This imposition of a small rate of tax was the public interest only which is saved under Article 304(b) of the Constitution. AIR 1961 SC 232 ; AIR 1962 SC 1406 ; AIR 1962 SC 1614 and 1996 STC 53 discussed. 1987 MPLJ 643 relied on". It has been further held by the Division Bench in the case Chief Municipal Officer, Keymore (supra) that the Municipal Council in exercise of its legislative function under section 127 read with section 129 of the M.P. Municipalities Act can levy the export tax by notification and such a function cannot be superseded by issuing any circular by the authority under rules. The legislative power can only be undermined by the Legislative Act and not by the subordinate authority. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tax was wrongly imposed on the edible oil by the impugned resolution (Annexure-P/4), as the same was exempted by the State Government and, therefore, at this stage, he undertakes to modify the resolution, so far it relates to edible oil and so far as Guris concerned the tax has been validly imposed. Thus, it is an admitted position that the 'Gur' is being produced in the area and petitioners are doing its business. The counsel for the respondent Municipality has categorically submitted this fact in their reply and for that the learned counsel for the petitioners has no serious objection. Therefore, as far as 'Gur' is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has no serious objection for imposition of Terminal Tax on the same. Therefore, it is held that the same has been validly imposed and the petitioners are liable to pay it. So far as edible oil is concerned, on the basis of the admission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Municipality that he will modify the notification (Annexure-P/4) dated 2.1.1997 within a period of 30 days and shall issue fresh notification and allow exemption. So far as edible oil is concerned, on the basis of the admission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Municipality that he will modify the notification (Annexure-P/4) dated 2.1.1997 within a period of 30 days and shall issue fresh notification and allow exemption. So far as Guris concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has no serious objection for imposition of Terminal Tax on the same. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions this petition is finally disposed of as held and directed above with no order as to costs.