AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct was enacted by the Assam State Legislature to make provision for imposition of limits on the areas of land that may be held by a person. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the ceiling on the existing land. Under s.5 a person holding land in excess of the ceiling is required to submit a return and under s. 7 (I), the Collector prepares a draft statement which shows the lands in excess of the limits fixed under s. 4. The said draft statement is published under sub-section (2) of S. 7 for the purpose of submitting objections. After considering the said oobjections, the draft statement is made final under sub-section (4) of S.7; and with effect from the date on which the final statement is signed by the Collector, all rights, title and interest of the person or persons whose lands are shown in excess in such statement, stand transferred to and vested in the State Government, free from all encumbrances created by such person. S. 12 makes provision for payment of compensation for the land which stands transferred to and vested in the State Government. Under clause (a) of S. 12 where the person from whom excess land has been acquired, held it as the owner thereof, the compensation, that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the learned counsel for the appellant, we may deal with the preliminary objection that has been raised by Mr. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the respondents. Mr Mazumdar has urged that the appeal filed by the appellant before the District Judge, Dibrugarh, against the order for assessment of compensation u/s. 12 of the Ceiling Act, was barred by limitation and that the District Judge was in error condoning the delay in filing the said apppeal. In this regard, Mr. Mazumdar has submitted that under the law a period of 30 days is prescribed for filing an appeal against an order under s. 12 and that in the instant case the final order granting compensation was passed by the State Government on February 8, 1979 and the apeal was filed on September 19, 1979, long after the stipulated period of limitation. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted before the District Judge that no order was communicated to the appellant and that the Collector by his order dated February 17, 1979 directed the appellant to collect the amount of ₹ 71, 811 and on request the company got a copy of the sanctioning letter on September 6, 1979 only and thus the appellant became aware of the sanction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that where the land is revenue free, or assessed to land revenue at a concessional rate, or where it is not assessed to land revenue under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 or of the Assam Land Revenue Reassessment Act, 1936, the compensation shall be determined on the basis of annual land revenue assessable under the provisions of the aforementioned Acts on similar, full revenue-paying land situated nearest to it." From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would appear that the measure for assessment of compensation is 'the full rate of annual land revenue' payable for the land acquired. The expression 'land revenue' is not defined in the Ceiling Act. Assessment and payment of land revenue in Assam is governed by the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue Regulation'). Clause (3) of s.3 of the Revenue Regulation defined the expression 'land revenue' in the following terms:- "3 (e) "land revenue" means any revenue assessed by the State Government on an estate, and includes any tax assessed in lieu of land revenue;" By the Assam Land Revenue Re-assessment Act, 1936, enacted for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was observed: "Although, therefore, in the present case it is in the form of surcharge, it is in substance an addition to the stipulated rates of tariff. The nomenclature, therefore, does not alter the position. Enhancement of the rates by way of surcharge is well within the power of the Board to fix or revise the rates of tariff under the provisions of the Act" (P. 311) Similarly, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. K.Srinivasan, [1972] 2 SCR 309, a question arose whether the term 'income-tax' as employed in s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1964, would include surcharge and addtional surcharge whenever provided. This Court while tracing the concept of surcharge in taxation laws of our country, has observed: "The power to increase federal tax by surcharge by the federal legislature was recommended for the first time in the report of the committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms, Vol. 1 Part I. From para 141 of the proposals it appears that the word "surcharge" was used compendiously for the special addition to taxes on income imposed in September, 1931. The Government of India Act 1935, Part VII, contained provisions relating to finance, property, contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s but an additional imposition of land revenue or a land tax and fell either within Entry 45 or Entry 49 of the State List. This Court agreeing with the view of the High Court held that the surcharge fell squarely within Entry 45 of the State List, namely, land revenue. It was observed:- "The legislation is but an enhancement of the land revenue by imposition of surcharge and it cannot be called a tax on land revenue, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is a common practice among the Indian Legislatures to impose surcharge on existing tax. Even art 271 of the Constitution speaks of a surcharge for the purpose of the Union being levied by way of increase in the duties or taxes mentioned in art, 269 and art. 270" (p.140) "It seems to us that the Act clearly levies land revenue although it is by way of surcharge on the existing land revenue. If this is so, the fact that the surcharge was raised to 100% of the land revenue on the wet and garden land and 75% of the land revenue in respect of dry lands, subject to some minor exceptions, does not change the nature of the imposition." (p. 141) From the aforesaid decisions, it is amply clear that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d surcharge. The learned Judges also referred to the decision of a Full Bench of five Judges of the High Court in Benoy Mazumdar v. Deputy Commissioner, Cochin & Ors (Civil Rule No.28 of 1977 decided on September 28, 1981) wherein the court was dealing with the constitutional validity of S.7(1A) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and had to deal with the question of compensation in terms of multiple of annual land revenue. After mentioning the various decisions that were referred to in the said decision, the learned Judges have observed that in those cases the annual land revenue was taken to mean the land revenue as assessed on land and nowhere the idea of surcharge entered into that concept. With great respect to the learned Judges of the High Court, we are unable to subscribe to this view. We do not find any sound basis for holding that surcharge on land revenue levied under the Surcharge Act is different and distinct in character from land revenue and does not fall within the ambit of annual land revenue under section 12 of the Ceiling Act. The use of the words "full rate of" before the words "annual land revenue payable for the land"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that surcharge on land revenue payable under the Surcharge Act is not land revenue but a levy which is distinct from land revenue. In consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Vishwesha Thirthaswamiar's case (supra), it must be held that the surcharge on land revenue levied under the Surcharge Act, being an enhancement of the land revenue, is part of the land revenue and has to be treated as such for the purpose of assessing compensation under s. 12 of the Ceiling Act. We may now examine whether the local rate payable under the Local Rates Regulation can be regarded as land revenue. In the Preamble to the Local Rates Regulation, the said Regulation has been made to provide "for the levy on land of rates to be applied to defray the expenditure incurred and to be incurred for the relief and prevention of famine and for local purposes". In S.1 of the Regulation it is prescribed that the said Regulation shall come into force in such districts, in such parts thereof and on such dates, as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, direct. Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns any cess now leviable on such land for any of the purposes mentioned in S.12, shall cease to be levied on such land or if such cess be maintained, a corresponding diminution shall be made for such rate. Moreover, as indicated in the Preamble, the amount realised by way of local rate is to be used for incurring expenditure for the relief and prevention of famine and for local purposes. Land revenue, on the other hand, forms part of general revenue of the State and is not limited for a particular purpose. Local rate leviable under the Local Rates Regulation is, therefore, a levy which is distinct and different in nature from land revenue. S.3 only provides a convenient mode of prescribing the rate for levy of local rate by fixing it as a proportion, namely, 25% of the annual value of the land and S.5 only provides the mode of recovery of the rate as arrear of land revenue. The said provisions do not have the effect of equating the local rate with land revenue or making it a tax in lieu of land revenue. The High Court has rightly held that local rate payable under the Local Rate Regulation is an imposition which is distinct in character from land revenue and cannot be regard as la....