P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two rating appeals under the Calcutta Municipal Act, involving a common question of law. In appeal No. 198, the premises under assessment is No. 8, Judges Court Road. In appeal No. 284, the dispute is with regard to premises No. 10, Circus Avenue. Both the premises admittedly belonged to the Central Government (now the Union of India) on and from April 1, 1943. Prior to that date, the premises were' owned by the Bengal Telephone Corporation. There is no dispute that, during the period of the said ownership, that is, up to March 31, 1943, the premises were, liable to Municipal tax. There is dispute, however, as to whether they were liable to such tax from after that date, or, what is directly relevant for our present purpose, whether they are liable to such tax after the Constitution. This question of liability after the Constitution is, strictly speaking, the only point, arising for decision in these appeals, though, for deciding the same, reference to the earlier dispute may be necessary.

( 2 ) THE learned Judges of the court below have both answered the above question in the negative. Feeling aggrieved by their decision, the Corporation have come up in appeal in both these cases.

( 3 ) THE point is short but somewhat interesting, particularly in view of the approach, made by the learned Judges of the court below, and the supporting argument of the assessee, the Union of India, which was accepted by them and which has been repeated before us. It is not denied that both the properties were actually assessed by the appellant Corporation and the assessed rates were actually paid by the respondent Union of India upto the end of the second quarter of 1950-51, that is, upto a post-Constitution period. The Union, however, claims that that assessment was illegal and ultra vires as the properties, immediately they became the properties of the Central Government on April 1, 1943, ceased to be liable to Municipal taxes and the levy and realisation of such taxes was illegal and cannot be taken advantage of by the Corporation. This is denied by the Corporation which contends that the said assessment was perfectly legal and justified and the realisation of the taxes was not in any way unlawful and that, in any event, in view of the said assessment and its payment and realisation, the Union cannot claim exemption of the above premises from the present disputed assessment.

( 4 ) THE dispute really turns upon the true construction of Article 285 Clause (2) of the Constitution. On its plain language, there is absolutely no difficulty in the facts of the present two cases, but the respondent seeks to introduce considerations of the history of this legislation and the background of the previous state of the law against which this Article was enacted, into the matter of its construction, and that tends to create some complication. We do not think, however, that, in view of the clear language of the Article, such consideration would be very material and we would prefer to construe the Article on its language, as it stands, without reference to any extraneous consideration. We would merely refer to the legislative history and the preexisting state of the law for elucidating the argument of the respondent and for meeting the same in the facts of the present cases.

( 5 ) TO explain the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out Article 285 of the Constitution and also the corresponding, or parallel sec. 154 of its predecessor, the Government of India Act, 1935. It will also be necessary in that connection to refer to the pre-existing state of the law on the subject. We, accordingly, proceed to do the same.

( 6 ) ARTICLE 285 of the Constitution contains two Clauses which are in these terms:" (1) The property of the Union shall, save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State. (2) Nothing in Clause (1) shall, until Parl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document