Urban land within municipal limits remains liable to wealth tax; tribunal cannot decide constitutional vires challenges.

Agricultural land falling within municipal limits and covered by the statutory definition of "urban land" is treated as exigible to wealth tax under the Wealth-tax Act, as the controversy was noted to be settled by binding Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedent. The Tribunal therefore did not re-examine the merits and followed the existing legal position against the assessees. A separate challenge to the constitutional validity of levying wealth tax on such land was not entertained, because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to rule on vires. The result was that the taxability issue went against the assessees, while the constitutional issue was left undecided.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether agricultural land falling within municipal limits and covered by the definition of "urban land" is exigible to wealth tax under section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. (ii) Whether the Tribunal could adjudicate the challenge to the vires of the levy of wealth tax on agricultural land.

Issue (i): Whether agricultural land falling within municipal limits and covered by the definition of "urban land" is exigible to wealth tax under section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The issue was treated as already settled by the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal noted that identical controversy had attained finality against the assessees and that the lands in question fell within the category already held chargeable to wealth tax. On that basis, no further examination on merits was undertaken.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessees and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could adjudicate the challenge to the vires of the levy of wealth tax on agricultural land.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that a plea questioning the constitutional validity of the levy could not be examined by it, as it lacked jurisdiction to rule on vires. The challenge was therefore not entertained on merits.

Conclusion: The vires challenge was not adjudicated by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in view of the binding precedent on wealth-taxability of the land in dispute, and the constitutional challenge was left outside the Tribunal's competence.

Ratio Decidendi: Land falling within the statutory definition of urban land is liable to wealth tax, and a tribunal cannot decide the constitutional validity of the levy itself.

---