Constitutional validity of urban land tax: severability and retrospective amendment cured the defect and preserved State competence.

A levy on urban lands was analysed by comparing Entry 49 of List II, which permits tax on land and buildings as units, with Entry 86 of List I, which concerns tax on the total assets of a person. The commentary explains that the original Act was within State competence, the 1973 amendment introduced the constitutional defect, and the later corrective legislation restored the levy within Entry 49. It also states that the invalid surplus was severable because the remaining provisions formed a complete and workable scheme, and that a retrospective ordinance and amending Act could cure the defect and revive the legislation before final judicial invalidation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Rajasthan Urban Lands Tax Act, 1964, as amended in 1973, was in pith and substance a tax falling under Entry 86 of List I or Entry 49 of List II of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the offending portion of the amended charging provision was severable from the rest of the Act; and (iii) whether the 1973 Ordinance and the subsequent amending Act retrospectively cured the defect and revived the legislation.

Issue (i): Whether the Rajasthan Urban Lands Tax Act, 1964, as amended in 1973, was in pith and substance a tax falling under Entry 86 of List I or Entry 49 of List II of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The charging scheme was examined against the settled distinction between a tax on land and buildings as units under Entry 49 of List II and a tax on the total assets of a person under Entry 86 of List I. The Act, in its original form, was confined to urban lands and was within State competence. The 1973 amendment introduced the impugned breadth, but the later corrective legislation restored the levy to a constitutionally permissible tax on land and buildings as units.

Conclusion: The levy, as finally salvaged, fell within Entry 49 of List II and not within Entry 86 of List I.

Issue (ii): Whether the offending portion of the amended charging provision was severable from the rest of the Act.

Analysis: The governing test was whether the valid and invalid portions were so inextricably mixed that the legislature would not have enacted the valid part by itself. The Court found that the principal Act had an independent existence, the unconstitutional surplus introduced by the 1973 amendment was capable of being separated, and the remaining provisions formed a complete and workable code after the objectionable part was removed.

Conclusion: The offending portion was severable, and the remainder of the Act survived.

Issue (iii): Whether the 1973 Ordinance and the subsequent amending Act retrospectively cured the defect and revived the legislation.

Analysis: Once the objectionable feature was withdrawn by the corrective ordinance and amending Act, the charging provision and the supporting valuation machinery stood restored with retrospective effect. The Court held that a legislature may correct its own mistake before a judicial declaration of invalidity, and that such corrective legislation can resuscitate a statute that had not been finally struck down.

Conclusion: The later ordinance and amending Act validly cured the defect retrospectively and revived the legislation.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed because the Act, after the corrective amendments, remained a valid State levy on land and buildings and the impugned objections did not invalidate the surviving scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory levy remains valid where the unconstitutional portion is severable and later retrospectively removed by competent legislation, leaving a complete tax on land and buildings within the State's field of competence.

---