The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's building does not qualify for exemption from property tax as a Government of India undertaking under Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in Assessment No.90081 dated 11.12.2008 and the consequential appeal order passed by the 2nd respondent in AP.No.46/09/A2, dated 28.01.2010 and quash the same as unconstitutional and illegal and direct the 3rd respondent to act as per the mandate of the Constitution of India.)

1. The petitioner is the Central Warehousing Corporation, Nagercoil Branch filed this writ petition through its Regional Manager as against the assessment notice issued by the Commissioner of Nagercoil Municipality dated 11.12.2008 and as against the assessment of building tax for the petitioner''s building with at Rs.92,406/- per half year with effect from 01.04.2008 and the order of the 2nd respondent/ Taxation Appeal Authority dated 28.01.2010 and for consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to assess the property tax as per Article 285 of the Constitution of India and under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the building of the petitioner''s Corporation being a building of the Union of India shall not be levied with the building tax by the third respondent in view of the specific prohibition under Article 285 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also put on notice about this constitution mandate to the 3rd respondent by way of a representation dated 30.05.2010 but without considering it, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.12.2008 fixing the property tax at Rs.92,406/- per half year as building tax for the buildings of the petitioner corporation.

3. The learned Counsel further submits that the 3rd respondent has not provided anamenity to the petitioner corporation and even if such amenities are provided, the service charges ought to be charged at 33 1/3% of the tax levied to the similarly situated government building, as per the official issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, dated 26.04.1994 These guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development were considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court I Rajkot Municipal Corporation and Others Vs Union of India, in Civil Appeal No.9458 to 9463 of 2003 dated 19.11.2009 and the Hon''ble Supreme Court has framed certain guidelines for payment of service charges by the Central Government Departments to the Urban Local bodies The petitioner is stocking the agricultural produce of the agriculturists and such stocked goods are meant for public distribution system of the government and therefore, n o building tax can be levied to the petitioner''s building.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments support of his contention:

i. Rajkot Municipal Corporation and Others Vs Union of India [Civil Appeal Nos.9458 to 9463 of 2003];

ii. Municipal Corporation, Amiristar Vs Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Amiristar Division, reported in 2004 SC 2912;

iii. International Airport Authority of India Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 302;

iv. Magdoom Sheriff Vs Kancheepuram Municipality reported in 1993(2) MLJ 262;

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is claiming exemption from the property tax that the petitioner is the Government of India undertaking and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax. The issue whether the writ petitioner Central Warehousing Corporation is an undertaking of Government of India was already decided in AS.No.144 of 2000 vide judgment dated 30.10.2000 in the petitioner''s own case. In the aforesaid judgment this Court has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Hotel Corporation of India Vs State and Others, reported in AIR 2001 Jammu and Kashmir Page 36 and in the International Airport Authority of India Vs Muni