9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence to tax mobile towers. 2. Validity of the statutory provisions under the GPMC Act. 3. Mechanism for collection of property tax on mobile towers. Summary: Issue 1: Legislative Competence to Tax Mobile Towers The petitioners challenged the authority of local bodies to tax mobile towers, arguing that mobile towers are not buildings and thus fall outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature u/s Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The court examined whether mobile towers could be considered buildings and thus be taxed under this entry. The court held that mobile towers are not buildings as they do not fit the common understanding of the term "building," which typically includes structures with a roof and walls intended for habitation or storage. The court concluded that the State Legislature did not have the competence to enact the law permitting the collection of taxes on towers but held that the cabins associated with these towers could be considered buildings and thus be taxed. Issue 2: Validity of the Statutory Provisions under the GPMC Act The petitioners contended that Section 145A of the GPMC Act, which provides for taxing mobile towers, was ultra vires Articles 14, 243, and 265 of the Constitution. The court examined whether the statutory provisions were valid, considering that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, already occupied the field of telegraphs, including mobile towers. The court found that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the GPMC Act operate in different fields. The former deals with the establishment, maintenance, and working of telegraphs, while the latter pertains to municipal governance and taxation. The court held that the State Legislature could enact laws for taxing structures like cabins associated with mobile towers under Entry 49 of List II but not the towers themselves. Issue 3: Mechanism for Collection of Property Tax on Mobile Towers The petitioners argued that the mechanism for collecting property tax on mobile towers was flawed, as proper rules had not been framed following the procedure provided under respective Acts. They contended that some local authorities had raised property tax bills without any authority and relied on government resolutions struck down by the court. The court did not find it necessary to examine the mechanism further, given its conclusion on the legislative competence and validity of the statutory provisions. The court declared the tax bills raised by various local bodies invalid but allowed them to issue revised bills for taxing the cabins. Conclusion: The court held that the provisions of the GPMC Act allowing the taxation of mobile towers were ultra vires the Constitution. However, the cabins associated with these towers could be taxed as buildings. The court invalidated the tax bills raised by local bodies but permitted them to issue revised bills for the cabins. The petitioners were entitled to a refund of the tax already paid, limited to one year before filing the petition.
|
