High Court Of Delhi
MAN MOHAN TULI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 73 of 1976
Decided On : 01/27/1977
TERMINAL TAX - NATURE AND INCIDENTS - ENTRY OF GOODS INTO BUILDING SITUATED AT DELHI-U.P. BORDER - TAXABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 178 OF DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - SCOPE OF TERMINAL TAX - GOODS IN TRANSIT - EXEMPTION FROM TAX - CONDITIONS - REASONABLENESS OF RULES - ABOLITION OF TERMINAL TAXES AND BARRIERS - NEED FOR RATIONALIZATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners and occupants of godowns situated at the Delhi-U.P. border, challenged the levy of terminal tax by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the entry of goods into the godowns. The godowns were accessible only from the U.P. side, and a substantial part of the property fell within the U.P. territory. The MCD claimed that the entry of goods into the building amounted to entry into the Union territory of Delhi and was subject to terminal tax, either as transit fee or terminal tax, depending on the intended use of the goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the entry of goods into the godowns did not amount to entry into the Union territory of Delhi for the purpose of terminal tax. The building was not situated within the Union territory, and the MCD was unable to provide any municipal services to the area. The court also held that the terminal tax was leviable only on goods carried into the Union territory for consumption, use, or sale therein, and not on goods in transit. The Rules framed by the MCD, which provided for the levy of terminal tax on goods in transit, were held to be unreasonable and beyond the scope of the notification exempting goods in transit from the tax.
Issues: 1. Whether the entry of goods into the godowns amounted to entry into the Union territory of Delhi for the purpose of terminal tax? 2. Whether the terminal tax was leviable on goods in transit? 3. Whether the Rules framed by the MCD were reasonable and within the scope of the notification exempting goods in transit from the tax?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the entry of goods into the godowns did not amount to entry into the Union territory of Delhi for the purpose of terminal tax because: - The building was not situated within the Union territory. - The MCD was unable to provide any municipal services to the area. 2. The court held that the terminal tax was leviable only on goods carried into the Union territory for consumption, use, or sale therein, and not on goods in transit, because: - The language of Section 178 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which authorized the levy of terminal tax, did not import any limitation on the incident of taxation. - The historical background of terminal taxes indicated that they were intended to be levied on goods brought into an area for consumption, use, or sale, and not on goods in transit. 3. The court held that the Rules framed by the MCD, which provided for the levy of terminal tax on goods in transit, were unreasonable and beyond the scope of the notification exempting goods in transit from the tax because: - The Rules denied the right of transhipment, sorting out, and stoppage for a reasonable period, which were integral parts of transit. - The Rules defeated the object of the exemption by making the right of transit without the liability of the levy of terminal tax almost illusory and virtually nugatory.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the MCD was restrained from treating entry into the building as an entry into the Union territory of Delhi and from levying any terminal tax on the goods while in transit in the Union territory of Delhi.
( 1 ) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a number of interesting questions as to the nature and incidents of terminal tax in the context of the rather unusual location of immovable property, consisting of godowns, which are situated at the Delhi-U. P, border in such a manner that while the only entrance to the property and a part of the built area is within the territorial limits of the State of U. P. , and within the local area of the Ghaziabad Nagar Palika, a substantial part of the property falls within the territorial limits of Union territory of Delhi.
( 2 ) THE petitions were filed in the following circumstances. Manmohan Tuli, a resident of Delhi, owns a piece of land situated on the Grand Trunk Road near the 6th mile stone from Delhi to Ghaziabad beyond Delhi-U. P, border. The land is surrounded in the south and west by the territory of U. P. and on the other two sides by the Union territory of Delhi. On the aforesaid land the owner built a number of godowns apparently at the instance of and for the benefit of certain road transport organisations having inter-state operations for the carriage of goods and some industrial houses having national marketing channels as a possible site for transhipment cum sorting out centre with a view to rationalise transport operations, save time, and reduce costs. The godowns are built on the land in such a manner that the only opening to the building is from the G. T. Road, which is within the territory of the State of U. P. and forming part of the local area of the Ghaziabad Nagar Palika. The north of the land is undeveloped, low lying an,d waterlogged and is apparently incapable of being used to provide either any outlet or for facilities or services, either by the owner of the property, its occupants or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In course of time some of these godowns were let out to some of the transport organisations, which have inter-state operations, as indeed to some of the industrial houses having inter-state movement of goods. The property tax is levied by the Ghaziabad Nagar Palika, which claims that the entire property would be within the local area of its jurisdiction. The entrance to the building admittedly being in the U. P. territory and, therefore, this side of the terminal tax barrier set up by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as indeed the U. P. Delhi border post, the location of the godowns has been beneficial to the transport operators, as indeed the industrial houses, who found it convenient for the purpose of transhipment and sorting out of goods meant for different destinations in, as well as outside Delhi, after transit through the Union territory of Delhi. The need for transhipment an,d sorting out apparently arises because in the course of operations of large transport organisations and industrial houses goods meant for different destinations in and beyond Delhi are transhipped to different vehicles meant for common destinations so as to avoid delay in transportation and in the process reduce the cost of transportation. For reasons, which are not clear, but, may perhaps have some connection with the possible attempt to misuse the godowns to smuggle goods into Delhi, without payment of terminal tax, an attempt was made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to set up a sort of a terminal tax post outside the main gate of the building and on the property of the owner on the assumption that the property was within the Union territory of Delhi and an entry of goods into the property was tantamount to entry of goods in the Union territory of Delhi, which would attract terminal tax, either on the basis that the goods were in transit or on the basis that they were meant for consumption within the local area of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. This was obviously objected to by the owner and it is a common case of the parties that there is at present no terminal tax post outside the building. It is never
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.