Sixth Schedule taxation requires strict constitutional compliance; levy failed without valid notification, sanction, and assent.

In a Sixth Schedule area, a levy under section 68(1)(n) of the Assam Municipal Act could not operate without strict compliance with paragraph 12, including public notification adopting the State law, and without valid sanction by the competent authority; the office memoranda relied on did not satisfy those requirements and the levy was invalid. The levy also could not be justified under paragraph 8, because the District Council's taxing power required supporting regulations and Governor's assent, which were not shown. The arrangement was therefore set aside for want of lawful authority and was ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned entry tax settlement under section 68(1)(n) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 was valid in the absence of compliance with paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India and a valid sanction by the competent authority of the Bodoland Territorial Council. (ii) Whether the levy could alternatively be sustained under the taxing power in paragraph 8 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned entry tax settlement under section 68(1)(n) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 was valid in the absence of compliance with paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India and a valid sanction by the competent authority of the Bodoland Territorial Council.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme applicable to the tribal area required State legislation to operate there only in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule, namely by public notification of the District Council. The office memoranda relied upon to show adoption of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 did not amount to such public notification, and no proof of compliance with paragraph 12 was produced. Independently, section 68(1)(n) required sanction of the Government, but the letter relied upon was issued by an officer who was not shown to be the Principal Secretary vested with the sanctioning power. The levy was also inconsistent with the mandate that taxation must have authority of law.

Conclusion: The settlement and the levy under section 68(1)(n) could not be sustained and were invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy could alternatively be sustained under the taxing power in paragraph 8 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Although paragraph 8 confers taxing power on the District Council for specified local purposes, the exercise of that power required supporting regulations and submission to the Governor for assent. No such duly approved regulatory instrument was shown. In the absence of a consummated legal framework, the levy could not be justified on this alternative footing.

Conclusion: The levy was not sustainable under paragraph 8 of the Sixth Schedule either.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned settlement succeeded, and the entry tax arrangement was set aside for want of lawful authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a levy in a Sixth Schedule area depends on State-law applicability or council taxation powers, strict compliance with the constitutional procedure, including public notification and competent sanction or assent, is mandatory; absent such compliance, the levy is ultra vires.

---