Tax levy requires statutory resolution and Gazette notification; alternative appeal does not bar writ relief where authority of law is challenged.

Under the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922, a tax was not validly imposed merely because the rules had been altered; the statute required a special resolution fixing the operative date and a Government notification in the Official Gazette, with notification serving as a condition precedent to levy. The article also explains that a writ petition remained maintainable despite an appeal under section 128, because an alternative statutory remedy does not exclude Article 226 jurisdiction, especially where the demand is challenged as lacking authority of law. It further notes that Article 265 protects against taxation without lawful authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a tax could be levied on the strength of altered rules without a special resolution under section 119 and a notification under section 120 of the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under section 128 of the Act and the objection that the challenge related to a pre-Constitution matter.

Issue (i): whether a tax could be levied on the strength of altered rules without a special resolution under section 119 and a notification under section 120 of the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Board, after the preparatory steps concerning the rules, to pass a special resolution fixing the date from which the tax would operate and then to obtain notification by the State Government. Section 120(2) made notification in the official Gazette a condition precedent to the imposition of the tax, and section 120(3) treated such notification as conclusive proof that the tax had been imposed in accordance with the Act. The procedure under sections 115 to 118, by itself, did not complete the process of imposing the tax.

Conclusion: The tax could not be levied without compliance with sections 119 and 120, and the assessee's challenge succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under section 128 of the Act and the objection that the challenge related to a pre-Constitution matter.

Analysis: The demand was a post-Constitution levy, and the assessee was entitled to resist taxation except under authority of law. Article 265 protected against taxation without lawful authority. The existence of an appellate remedy under section 128 did not exclude the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, because such a provision does not oust writ jurisdiction; it only furnishes an alternative remedy which the High Court may take into account in its discretion.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the objections to jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the levy lacked the statutory steps necessary to validly impose the tax, and the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes notification after a special resolution a condition precedent to the imposition of a tax, the tax cannot be levied until that procedure is completed, and the availability of an alternative statutory appeal does not bar writ relief where the demand is alleged to lack authority of law.

---