2008 (10) TMI 630 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Corporation had jurisdiction and authority to assess and recover the property tax from respondent No.1 for the buildings, superstructure constructed in the market yard within the area of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the Municipal Corporation to claim property tax.
2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature under Part IXA of the Constitution.
3. Interpretation of Section 9(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction and Authority of the Municipal Corporation to Claim Property Tax:
The primary issue was whether the Municipal Corporation, Ratlam had the jurisdiction to levy property tax on the buildings and superstructure constructed in the Market Yard within its area. The respondent contended that the Municipal Corporation had no such right, and sought a refund of Rs. 70,000/- deposited pursuant to notice and auction proceedings initiated against them.

Legislative Competence of the State Legislature under Part IXA of the Constitution:
The question of legislative competence was raised concerning whether the State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh had the authority to enact provisions under Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam, given the provisions contained in Part IXA of the Constitution. However, the appellant did not challenge the proviso to Section 9(3) on the grounds of legislative competence at any stage.

Interpretation of Section 9(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972:
Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam provides that the premises used for market yard, sub-market yard, or for the purpose of the Board shall not be deemed to be included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area, Gram Panchayat, or a Special Area Development Authority. The proviso to this section creates an exception, ensuring that properties used for these specific purposes are exempt from property tax levied by municipal authorities.

The court reiterated that the function of a proviso is to except something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein, which would otherwise fall within the purview of the main enactment. It emphasized that a proviso cannot be used to import into the enacting part something which is not there.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that since there was no challenge to the proviso of Section 9(3) regarding legislative competence, the High Court could not have dealt with that issue. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs, and the court noted that if a challenge to the legislative competence is made in the future, it would be considered in its proper perspective and in accordance with the law.