LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points have been raised. One is that out of the total extent of urban land assessed under the Urban Land Tax Act, 77 grounds are in the occupation of slum dwellers, that a notification has been made under the City Tenants Protection Act as well as the Slum Dwellers Clearance Act, and that, therefore, these facts will have taken into consideration in assessing the market value. In fact, the contention goes so far as to suggest that the market value should be determined of these 77 grounds only in accordance with the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act. But, it is obvious that in a taxing statute the main provisions to be looked into in order to determine the ambit of the burden the taxpayer should bear are the charging Sec. and the provisions providing for allowance In the Urban Land Tax Act, no allowance has been provided for on that ground. As a sub -division of this contention, it is argued that since this extent of 77 grounds is in the occupation of slum dwellers, this should have a bearing upon the market value. Here again, we are unable to accept this contention, because no allowance is given by the Act on that ground. The two tests are (1) whether the land is within the City limits and (2) whether it is capable of being built upon. If the answer is yes and if there is no provision giving any allowance in the Act, the charge follows.