Dwivedi. J. - (1.) THE petitioner, the New Swadeshi Sugar Mills Ltd., has filed this petition against the assessment of tax on circumstances and property on it. The petitioner is a public limited company.
(2.) ON the last hearing counsel for the petitioner pressed this point: no tax on circumstances and property can be assessed on a company. In support of his argument he relied on Zilla Parishad Muzaffarnagar v. Baboo Ram, 1970 All LJ 1224. It is the decision of a learned single Judge. He has held that the aforesaid tax cannot be assessed on a company. As we found it difficult to share the view of the learned Judge, we adjourned the hearing of the case in order to enable counsel to be ready for a full fledged argument. We have now heard counsel for the petitioner. Today he has advanced a second point for our consideration. So we are now required to consider two points: (1) whether a company is a person within the meaning of the Zilla Parishad Act and the Dis trict Boards Act; (2) Whether tax on circumstances and property can be as sessed on a company under the said Acts? In this case tax has been asses sed by the Zilla Parishad, Allahabad. The Zilla Parishad is governed by the U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishad Act. Section 120 of that Act provides that where immediately before the appointed date there was in force a tax on circum stances and property in any district im posed or continued under the U. P. District Boards, Act, 1922. such tax shall, until abolished or altered with the pre vious sanction of the State Government, continue to be levied by the Zilla Parishad at the same rates and under the same conditions at and under which it was being levied under the aforesaid Act. There is a further provision that all rules, regulations and byelaws relat ing to the levy of such taxes in force on the appointed day shall continue in force as if they had been made under this Act. So we have to look to the U. P. District Boards Act (hereinafter called the Act) for deciding the two points. Section 108 of the Act provides that a District Board may continue a tax already imposed on persons assessed according to their circumstances and pro perty. Section 114 of the Act regulates the imposition of the tax on circum stances and property. It provides four limitations on the power of imposing the tax. The tax may be imposed on "any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area provided that such per son has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year under assessment. Tax can not be imposed on "any person" whose total taxable income is less than Rupees 200/- per annum. The total amount of tax "on any person" shall not exceed such maximum, if any, as may be pre scribed by rule. According to Ss. 108 and 114 tax on circumstances and pro perty may be imposed on a 'person' only. The argument is that a company is not a 'person'. It is said that the word "per son" in those sections means a physical person and not an artificial person. In Zila Parishad Muzaffarnagar. a learned single Judge has accepted this argument. According to him. the word 'person' in Sections 108 and 114 means only a physi cal person.
(3.) THE word "person" is not denned in the Act. It is. however, defined in Section 4 (33) of the U. P. General Clauses Act. According to S. 4 (33) "a person" shall include also a company. The definition in the General Clauses Act will apply to Sections 108 and 114 un less there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.;