Pathak, J. - (1.) THE District Board, Bareilly, by resolution No. 3 dated February 18, 1928, imposed circumstance and property tax in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 108 of the District Boards Act, 1922. By Notification No. 2049/n/IX-342-11930 dated November 29, 1933 made by the State Government under Section 114 fd) of the Act, it was pro vided: "The total amount of the tax on cir cumstances and property Imposed by a District Board on any single assessee shaU not, in any year, exceed the sum of Rs. 2, 000." The tax continued to be levied for many years.
(2.) ON April 20, 1958 the U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Ordinance 1958 was enact ed providing for the establishment of Antarim Zila Parishads for the interim ad ministration of local self-Governrnent in rural areas facilitating the establishment of Zila Parishads for the co-ordinated ad ministration of affairs concerning econo mic and social planning and local self-Government in the districts in Uttar Pradesh. The Ordinance was replaced by the U. P. Antarim Zila Parishads Act, 1958. It was followed by the U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961. By Section 274 of the Act, the U. P.District Boards Act was repealed as from the date on which Kshettra Samitis were established in a district and the U. P, Antarim Zila Parishads Act, 1958 was repealed from the date on which the Zila Parishad was established in a district. The petitioner carries on business In Bareilly. Although the business is carried on within what were the local limits of the District Board, BareiUy and thereafter of the Antarim Zila Parishad, BareiUy the petitioner was never assessed to circumstance and property tax by those local bodies Some time after the Zila Parishad, BareiUy was constituted, the petitioner, who was carrying on business within what were now the locallimits of the Zila Parishad, Bareilly received a notice on January 5, 1965 from the Zila Parishad demanding circumstance and property tax in the sum of Rs. 1, 500 for the year 1964-65. The petitioner object ed, but upon the assurance of the Adhya-ksha of the Zila Parishad that the matter would be looked into, it paid the sum demanded. In 1966 the petitioner receiv ed a bUl for the year 1965-66 demanding circumstance and property tax in the sura of Rs. 2, 000. The petitioner filed an objection contending that the levy was illegal and that the ZUa Parishad had no power to levy it In particular, the peti tioner contended that the Zila Parishad could not demand circumstance and pro perty tax in excess of Rs. 250 and relied upon Article 276 of the Constitution, The objection was rejected by the Zila Parishad, which issued a notice of demand dated August 20, 1966 requiring the peti tioner to pay the tax levied. The peti tioner has filed this petition praying for relief against the demand.
(3.) THE case was first heard by me sitting as a single Judge. The petitioner contended that the demand contravened Article 276 (2) of the Constitution declar ing that the total amount payable by any one person to any local authority by way of taxes on professions, trades, callings or employments shaU not exceed Rupees 250 per annum. The Zila Parishad relied, however, upon the proviso to Article 270 (2)which excepted from the substantive provision of Article 276 (2) a tax in force during the financial year preceding the commencement of the Constitution Im posed by a local authority on profes sions, trades, callings and employments even if the rate exceeded Rs. 250 per annum unless Parliament by law pro vided to the contrary. In reply to the submission of the petitioner that the proviso contemplated a local authority which was the same as that Imposing the tax before the commencement of the Constitution and that the Zila Parishad, Bareilly could not be said to be the same as the District Board, BareiUy, the Zila Parishad relied upon Allahabad Canning Co., BamrauU v. Commissioner of Allaha bad Division Civil Misc. Writ. No. 2882 of 1966, D.00 20-2-1967(All). Upon the submissions of learned counsel for the parties it appeared necessary that the view taken in that case should be recon sidered and accordingly the case was re ferred to a larger Bench. It was then plac ed before a Division Bench consisting of myself and Gulati, J. and as the Bench found itself unable to accept the view taken in Allahabad Canning Co., Bam-rauli. Civil Misc. Writ No. 2882 of 1966, D.00 20-2-1967 (AU) (Supra) it directed the case to be laid before a larger Bench, Accordingly, this case has now been laid. before us.;