Back
1995 Supreme(Raj) 86
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.R.YADAV
CENTRAL WARE-HOUSING CORPORATION, SRIGANGANAGAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition 2618 Of 1987
Decided On : 02/03/1995
H.N.Calla, L.S.UDAVAT
The exemptions from taxation granted by the State Legislature under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964 may be strictly construed and it may not be extended beyond the express requirements of the language used in the aforesaid Section.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN LANDS AND BUILDINGS TAX ACT, 1964 - SECTION 6(A) - EXEMPTION FROM TAX - STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PROPERTY OWNED AND ADMINISTERED BY STATUTORY CORPORATION - ARTICLE 285(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - LOCAL AUTHORITY - DEFINITION - SECTION 32(43) OF THE RAJASTHAN GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1955 - SECTION 3(31) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a statutory corporation created under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, challenged the assessment and imposition of tax amounting to Rs. 22,248/- by the Assistant Collector, Land and Building Tax Department, Sri Ganganagar under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 (the Act of 1964) in respect of the land and building situated in District Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner claimed exemption from such imposition of tax as contemplated under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner-Corporation was not entitled to get exemption under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964 merely because it fell within the definition of state or other authority as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The court further held that the property owned and administered by the petitioner-Corporation, which was a statutory corporation created under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, had a corporate personality of its own and such property owned and administered by the petitioner-Corporation could not be said to be the property of the Government of India within the meaning of Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India. Lastly, the court held that the petitioner-Corporation was not entitled to get exemption as contemplated under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964, as it did not fall within the definition of local authority given under Section 32(43) of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act 1955.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner-Corporation is entitled to get exemption under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964 merely because it falls within the definition of state or other authority as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the property owned and administered by the petitioner-Corporation, which is a statutory corporation created under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 has a corporate personality of its own and such property owned and administered by the petitioner-Corporation can be said to be the property of the Government of India within the meaning of Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the petitioner-Corporation is entitled to get exemption as contemplated under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner-Corporation was not entitled to get exemption under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964 merely because it fell within the definition of state or other authority as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as the definition of the State given under Article 12 of the Constitution of India was only applicable for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights, and not for the purpose of taxation laws. 2. The court held that the property owned and administered by the petitioner-Corporation, which was a statutory corporation created under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, had a corporate personality of its own and such property owned and administered by the petitioner-Corporation could not be said to be the property of the Government of India within the meaning of Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India, as the property of a Government Company or a Statutory Corporation, which has a corporate personality of its own, cannot be said to be property of the Union and as such liable to State or Municipal taxation. 3. The court held that the petitioner-Corporation was not entitled to get exemption as contemplated under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1964, as it did not fall within the definition of local authority given under Section 32(43) of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act 1955.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs assessed to be Rs. 2500/-.
R. R. YADAV, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner-Corporation calls in question assessment and imposition of tax amounting to Rs. 22,248. 00 by the Assistant Collector, Land and Building Tax Department, Sri Ganganagar under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 in respect of the land and Building situated in District Sri Ganganagar.
( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the present writ petition lies in short compass. It is alleged in the writ petition by the petitioner that Assistant Collector, Land and Building Tax Department, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) issued a notice under the provision of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1964) to the properties of the petitioner situated in Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner-Corporation did not file any return but appeared before respondent No. 2 in response to the notice issued by him and urged before him that the land or building of the petitioner-Corporation cannot be assessed under the Act of 1964. Respondent No. 2 did not accept the contention of the petitioner-Corporation and assessed the land and building of the petitioner-Corporation to tax amounting to Rupees 22,248 / -.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order issued by the Assistant Collector, Land and Building Tax Department, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) dated 22-12-81, the petitioner-Corporation filed an appeal before the Deputy Director (Appellate Authority), Land and Building Tax, Jodhpur where the appeal was registered as Appeal No. 1 of 1983 and the same was allowed vide Annx. 1 to the writ petition.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the order passed by the Deputy director (Appellate Authority), Land and Building Tax, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3), the Assistant Collector, Land and Building Tax Department, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) filed a revision petition under Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Act, 1964 before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (respondent No. 4 ). The Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director (Appellate Authority), Land and Building Tax, Jodhpur vide Annx. 2 to the writ petition.
( 5 ) THE petitioner-Corporation is seeking relief for quashing the impugned order Annx. 2 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 4 and also prayed for declaration that the petitioner-Corporation is entitled to get exemption from such imposition of tax as contemplated under Sec. 6 (a) of the Act of 1964.
( 6 ) AFTER service of notices the respondents, they have filed a return to the writ petition and have stated that it is irrelevant to say that the petitioner-Corporation is a state within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. According to the answering respondents, the exemption under Sec. 6 (a) of the Act of 1964 has been granted only to the Lands and Buildings owned or administered by the State Government or the Central Government or the Local Authority. Since the petitioner-Corporation does not fall within the meaning of the afore-mentioned three categories, therefore, it is wholly irrelevant to claim exemption from payment of tax merely on the ground that the petitioner-Corporation falls within the definition of state as contemplated under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India.
( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. H. N. Calla and learned Additional Advocate General Mr. L. S. Udawat at length and have critically gone through the material available on record.
( 8 ) THE main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. H. N. Calla in the instant writ petition are; firstly, the petitioner-Corporation is entitled to get exemption under Sec. 6 (a) of the Act of 1964 as it falls within the definition of the state as contemplated under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India secondly, the petitioner-Corporation being Statutory Corporation created under Sec. 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, therefore, they are entitled to get the benefit as contemplated und
