2016 (8) TMI 824 - HC - Indian Laws

Demand the property tax for the buildings used by the petitioner Department which is owned by the President of India - Held that - A clear exemption being granted the levy or collection of property tax by the respondent Corporation on the buildings owned by the Union of India is unauthorised and illegal. Therefore if any such tax have been collected the same requires to be refunded. So far as the service charges are concerned it seems that the Union of India had already agreed before the Hon ble Supreme Court as recorded in the judgment in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation (2009 (11) TMI 946 - SUPREME COURT). Thus it goes without saying that the Union of India will be bound by the said undertaking. As during the course of the argument a question was posed by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how these service charges have been quantified as the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that they have been paying service charges and the learned counsel replied by stating that there is no dispute to the said fact and the petitioner themselves have stated so in their letter dated 28.01.2009 stating that they are paying service charges to the Corporation of Chennai half yearly based on 33 1/3% of the property tax. Therefore this submission is taken on record to state that there is no default on the part of the petitioner in remitting the service charges. In the light of the above stated legal position the writ petition is disposed of by holding that the respondent Corporation are not entitled to levy and collect property tax for the buildings owned by the Union of India and if any property tax had already been collected the same shall be refunded within a reasonable time. However in terms of the agreement arrived at as recorded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rajkot Municipal Corporation (Supra) the petitioner is bound to remit the service charges to the respondent Corporation. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondent Corporation can demand property tax from the buildings used by the petitioner Department, owned by the President of India.
2. Whether the respondent Corporation wrongly collected and issued receipts for property tax as service charges.
3. Whether the respondent Corporation can impose tax on properties owned by the Union in light of Article 285 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the Union of India is bound to pay service charges as per the agreement reached in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Union of India.

Analysis:

1. The legal issue in this case revolves around the respondent Corporation's demand for property tax from buildings used by the petitioner Department, owned by the President of India. The petitioner argued that based on a circular prevailing during 2007-08 and legal advice, some amounts were remitted by the Department. However, the Corporation issued receipts as if they were for property tax, leading to a challenge by the petitioner.

2. The Court examined the receipts issued by the Corporation and found that they were property tax receipts, despite being labeled as service charges in the communication sent to the petitioner. The respondent Corporation, although claiming to have collected service charges, admitted that the receipts were issued from the property tax receipt book.

3. Article 285(1) of the Constitution provides an exemption for the property of the Union from state taxes unless Parliament provides otherwise. Citing precedents such as Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, the Court emphasized that the State or its authorities, like the respondent Corporation, cannot levy tax on Union-owned properties. The Court highlighted the distinction between service charges and property tax, reiterating the constitutional prohibition on taxing Union properties.

4. Referring to the agreement in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Union of India, the Court noted that the Union agreed to pay service charges for municipal services, not property tax. The Court held that while property tax collected by the Corporation must be refunded due to its unauthorized nature, the Union is obligated to pay the agreed-upon service charges, as per the Supreme Court's recorded agreement.

In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the respondent Corporation cannot levy property tax on Union-owned buildings. Any property tax collected must be refunded, while the Union is bound to pay the agreed service charges. The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional exemption of Union properties from state taxes and upheld the legal distinction between property tax and service charges.