2016 Supreme(SC) 1011

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363 OF 2013 WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013, C.A. No. 5365/2013, C.A. Nos. 6385-6387/2013, C.A. Nos. 6737-6738/2013, C.A. No. 6739/2013, C.A. Nos. 6836-6926/2013, C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013, C.A. No. 8114/2013, C.A. No. 8115/2013, C.A. No. 8116/2013, C.A. No. 8117/2013, C.A. No.12209/2016 @ SLP(C) No. 362/2014, C.A. Nos. 2854-2855/2014, C.A. No.12211/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12567/2014), C.A. No.12212/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21521/2014), C.A. No.12213/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 22653/2014), C.A. Nos. 12214-12215/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29803-29804/2014), C.A. No. 12216/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 29765/2014), C.A. No. 12217/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 31442/2014), C.A. No.12218/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 31986/2014), C.A. No.12220/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24053/2014), C.A. No.12219/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3550/2015), C.A. No.12221/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 6149/2015), C.A. No. 12222/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 8705/2015), C.A. No.12223/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9004/2015), C.A. No.12224/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9104/2015), C.A. No.12225/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.37142/2016 arising out of SLP.(C)...CC No. 4938/2015), C.A. No.12226/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9233/2015), C.A. No.12227/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.8698/2015), C.A. No.12228/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.9620/2015), C.A. No. 12229/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.10288/2015), C.A. No. 12230/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9827/2015), C.A. No.12231/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9994/2015), C.A. No.12232/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.11479/2015), C.A. No.12233/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 15175/2015), C.A. No.12234/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28473/2015), C.A. No.12235/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 1457/2016), C.A. No. 12236/2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12563/2016), C.A. No. 5348/2015, W.P.(C) No.216/2015, W.P.(C) No.611/2015, W.P.(C) No.577/2015, T.C.(C) No.108/2015, T.C.(C) No. 128/2015, T.C.(C) No. 129/2015, T.C.(C) No. 130/2015 and T.C.(C) No. 131/2015
Decided On : 16-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Validity of the statute cannot be tested on the touchstone of it being within the Legislative Entry, by a reference to the definition contained in the statute.
Principles of Constitutional interpretation restated.
Taxes having similarity levied by a Central and a State enactment, can co-exist having regard to the subject of the levy.
Mobile tower is building for the purposes of Entry 49 List II, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation if statute – Constitution of India – Seventh Schedule, List II, entry 49 – "Taxes on lands and buildings" – Meaning of legislative entry – Should not be understood by reference to the definition of the very same expressions appearing in a statute traceable to the particular Legislative Entry – Definitions contained in the statute may at times be broad and expansive or may even contain deeming provisions – Definition in the statute ascribing a wide meaning to a particular expression – Validity of the statute cannot be tested on the touchstone of it being within the Legislative Entry, by a reference to the definition contained in the statute – Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Section 2(30) and 2(5). (Para 14)

       (b) Constitutional interpretation – Constitutional provisions – Legislative Entry – Meaning of an Entry is always inclusive – Therefore, a broad, liberal and expansive interpretation is to be preferred – Principles of statutory interpretation are applicable to constitutional interpretation – Constitution being an organic document, must grow and live with the times – Broad and liberal Interpretation of a Legislative Entry must be guided by spirit of the Constitution and constitutional goals and philosophy – In constitutional interpretation dictionary meaning and the common parlance test can also be adopted – Words and expressions in a constitutional provision or Legislative Entry should not be given an unnatural meaning – A general word used in a constitutional Entry must be construed as to extend all ancillary and subsidiary matters that can be reasonably included. (Para 16, 24)

       (1990) 1 SCC 109; AIR 1990 SC 781; (2004) 10 SCC 201; (2007) 7 SCC 242; (1990) 1 SCC 12; AIR 1962 SC 1563; (1989) 3 SCC 698 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 246 – Supremacy of Parliament – If any, very limited, keeping in mind federal structure of the Union which is a basic feature of the Constitution – Central and State legislative spheres are spelt out – In case of a conflict or encroachment not being resolved by Courts, Article 246 will apply – Article 254 – There can be no encroachment either way – However, taxes having similarity levied by a Central and a State enactment, can co-exist having regard to the subject of the levy. (Para 19, 20)

       (1964) 3 SCR 787 – Referred

       (d) Constitution of India – Seventh Schedule – List II – Entry 49 – Land and building – Meaning of the expression "building" cannot be confined to a residential building as commonly understood or a structure raised for the purpose of habitation. (Para 28)

       (1975) 2 SCC 175; (1995) 1 Supp SCC 707; AIR 1991 SC 686; AIR 1975 SC 2037 : (1975) 2 SCC 274 – Relied upon

       (e) Interpretation of statute – Mobile towers – Regulatory power of the Corporations, Municipalities and Panchyats in the matter of installation, location and operation of `Mobile Towers' and measure of the levy – Leads to inference that power of taxation on `Mobile Towers' is vested in the State Legislature under Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule – Incidence of tax not on use of plant and machinery in the Mobile Tower – Rather it is on use of the land or building – Held, mobile tower is building for the purposes of Entry 49 List II, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India. (Para 29, 30, 31)

       (1995) 1 Supp SCC 707 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       This group of cases may be conveniently arranged in four different categories.

       The first are the appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 24/25.04.2013 passed by the Gujarat High Court declaring Section 145A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 as ultra vires the Constitution and on that basis interdicting the levy of property tax on "mobile towers". The High Court, however, took the view that the Cabin in a mobile tower in which BTS system, details of which are noticed below, is located, would be a building and, therefore, exigible to tax under the Gujarat Act. The State Government and the different Municipal Corporations have challenged the first part of the order of the High Court whereas the Cellular operators have challenged the later part.

       The Bombay High Court which was in seisin of a somewhat similar challenge, has taken the view that the writ petitions challenging the levy of property tax on mobile towers should not be entertained and the aggrieved writ petitioners therein (cellular operators) should be left with the option of exhausting the alternate remedies provided by the Act. This would be the third category of cases.

       The fourth and fifth categories of cases would be the writ petitions raising identical issues which have been transferred from the Bombay High Court to this Court and the writ petitions filed before this Court by the cellular operators under Article 32 of the Constitution raising a similar challenge as in the writ petitions filed before the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeals allowed.