- (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. , is that the petitioner is a Joint Stock Company carrying on business of quarrying stones. THE Gram Panchayat of Suket, where some of the mines of the petitioner are situated, gave a notice on 6th March, 1957 that the Company should pay tax at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mine under orders of the Divisional Panchayat Officer Kotah, and directed that the tax should be paid by 13th March, 1957. The petitioner has come to his Court on the allegation that the said tax had not been properly imposed as required by law, and therefore, the Gram Panchayat should be prohibited from collecting this tax. Under sec. 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, a Panchayat is permitted with the previous sanction of the State Government to impose certain taxes, the present one being mentioned in clause (d) as a tax on trade, callings and professions not exceeding such rates as may be prescribed. R. 26 gives a maximum limit of Rs. 20/-per year on the mining business of stone slabs for roof and floor if they are mined in the Panchayat circle. The procedure for imposition of tax is given in r. 24. The Panchayat has to first pass a resolution of its intention to impose a tax under sec. 61. The purpose of the said resolution has to be proclaimed in a certain manner mentioned in the Rule and objections are to be invited within a certain time. The objections when received have to be considered and if the decision is to impose the tax, the proposal together with the objections, is to be forwarded to the Chief Panchayat Officer, for approval. If the Chief Panchayat Officer agrees, he passes on the papers to the Government and in case the Government agrees, the Government has to specify the date from which the tax mentioned in the proposal has thereafter to be proclaimed in a particular manner. In the present case the resolution declaring the intention of the Gram Panchayat to impose a tax was notified on 17th February, 1956. The objections were filed by the Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. , on 18th March, 1956. The proceedings submitted by the Gram Panchayat dated 21st March,. 1956, record the decision of the Gram. Panchayat to impose the tax. A copy of the order of the Divisional Panchayat Officer dated 8th December, 1956, purports to convey the sanction of the Government for the imposition of the tax on persons doing the profession of mining of stone slabs, at Rs. 20/-per year. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat made its demand of Rs. 20/- per mine and it is admitted by both the parties that it was for the period from 1st April, 1956 upto 31st March, 1957. It may be observed that under sec. 64, a Gram Panchayat can impose tax only after pervious sanction of the State Government. The sanction of the State Government is dated 2nd October, 1956 and conveyed by the letter of the Divisional Panchayat Officer dated 6th December, 1956. There must be a resolution after the said sanction for imposing the tax. The petitioner denies the existence of any such resolution and the respondent has not been able to produce any resolution of the Gram Panchayat after receipt of the sanction from the Government. The provision of sec. 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act has, therefore, not been properly followed for the imposition of the tax in this case. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that under r. 24 the approval by the Government should be considered to be a sufficient compliance of the section. The contention would have been alright if the requirement of the previous sanction for imposition would not have been inserted in sec. 64. The approval by the Government does not complete a valid imposition unless it is followed up by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter proclamation was made thereof under sub-rule (6) of r. 24. It may be pointed out that r. 24 does not speak of a resolution by Gram Panchayat after receipt of sanction but the Rules are subject to the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Act cannot be stultified by anything contained in the Rules. There is also another defect in as much as even according to r. 24 the date from which the tax mentioned in the proposal is to come into force, has not been specified by the Government. The letter of the Divisional Panchayat Officer conveying the sanction is silent as regards the date from which the tax is to be recovered. The demand made by the Gram Panchayat is further illegal as the tax is dema- nded from the petitioner at Rs. 20/- per year per quarry (mine) while 64 clause 1 (d) and r. 26 permits a tax on the person carrying on the profession of mining not exceeding Rs. 20/-per year. One person may do the business of mining at several quarries, but he will nevertheless be carrying on the single profession of mining and not several professions and separate taxes in case of each mine worked by him are not leviable. There is yet another illegality under r. 26 sub-rule (2 ). Where the tax had been validly imposed, the Panchayat is to publish a list of persons liable to pay the tax on or before the 15th of January each year inviting objections upto 31st January and after hearing the objectors if they appear, the list is to be revised if necessary. The decision of the Panchayat given after hearing the objector is open to appeal. None of these provisions have been followed in the present case. We are, therefore, of opinion that the demand of tax from the petitioner at Rs. 20/- per mine, made by the Gram Panchayat Suket by its order of 6th March, 1957, is wholly illegal. The Gram Panchayat Suket is prohibited from recovering any tax of the nature mentioned in sec. 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, until it is properly imposed according to law. The petitioner will get his costs from the respondent, counsel's fee being taxed Rs. 50/ -. . ;