z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-02.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 36
36 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
amount due. Now, under the Municipal Act, there are only two provisions included in it in order to enable the municipality to recover the amount of property tax from the person who has defaulted. The first step is to levy a distress upon the property of the defaulted. The second method permitted to the municipality is to file a regular suit in the ordinary way. But, so far as penalty is concerned, there is none whatever in the Municipal Act itself. Then, coming to other financial measures I proceed to mention the provision in the Income Tax Act. My honourable friend must have noticed that there is a certain kind of penalty provided under the Income Tax Act that might be levied on the persons who are defaulters. That is done under section 45 of that Act. That is a big section and I do not want to go into it. I can mention the gist of it by saying that the scheme included under section 45 for the purpose for a continuing default. That is to say, if you make a default for one day, you will have to pay a certain penalty, if you default for two days then a further amount of penalty. That is penalty in a progressive manner. The maximum of penalty mentioned here is the amount of the tax itself. The provision contained here is not a continuing penalty for a continuing default. Then, I come to the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The penalty is mentioned in section 148. There, the provision is merely this. If there is a person who is a defaulter in the sense that he has not paid his instalment within the period fixed, then the Collector shall either levy a penalty, or interest on the amount due. According to the rules, there is one authorising Government to make a rule in that behalf. Having gone through the rules made by the Government of Bombay under the Land Revenue. Code, I find that the Government have made no rules at all with regard to the levy of penalty or with regard to the charging of interest. There is a casual mention in the notice of demand itself which fixes the penalty at a maximum of one-fourth the amount due. Now, Sir, I readily admit that the principle of penalty is new but it is something which undoubtedly exists in many financial provisions. Now, the questions we have to consider are with regard to the manner in which it is prescribed and the amount of maximum penalty that is laid down.
With regard to the other provisions of the Bill, the Honourable Minister has told us that they were merely consequential. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that they are the most contentious part of the Bill. If there is any provision in this Bill which makes me oppose it, it is really section
24B which my honourable friend seeks to introduce. First of all, let me deal with the arguments that this is merely consequential. Is it consequential or is it making the most radical, or if I may say so, revolutionary—
The Honourable Mr. A. B. Latthe: I never said that it was consequential—
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I withdraw—
The Honourable Mr. A. B. Latthe: I said that it was for making the provision clear.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: By trying to make the position clear, I have no doubt my Honourable friend the Minister has placed the Municipal Corporation of Bombay City in the issue. What is the position at which we