9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e asphalt layer. There are no bolts and nuts for holding the tanks on to the foundation. The tanks remain in the postition by its own weight. Each tank is about 30 ft. in height and 50 ft. in diameter weighing about 40 tons. The total weight of the tank filled with petroleum products would be about 7,160 tons. Each tank has a staircase along the side. Each of the tanks is connected with the pump house with the pipes for pumping petroleum products into the tank and sending them back to the pump house having a diameter of 8' x 14'. The distance between the pump house and tanks varies between 50 fts. to 300 fts. 2. For the year 1964-65 the appellant fixed a sum of ₹ 1,27.380 as the rateable value of the installations on the demised property consisting of the buldings, structures and tanks. The Investigating Officer, on objections raised by the respondent, reduced the rateable value to ₹ 84,660 i.e. ₹ 13,980 being the rateable value of the buildings and structures, and the balance i.e. ₹ 70,680 being the rateable value of the tanks. The rateable value of the tanks was fixed on the basis of the capacity of each of the tanks. On appeal to the Court of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be included in the rateable value of such building or land. 7. The general tax shall be levied on all the buildings and the lands in Greater Bombay except those exempted under Clauses (a) to (c) and Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 143. Section 154 provides the machinery to fix the rateable value and the value of the machinery contained or situated in or upon any building or land shall not be included in the rateable value of such building or land. The annual rent which the building or land might reasonably be expected to fetch is the basis to fix the rateable value of the building or land. It is, therefore, clear that any building or land situated in Greater Bombay is exigible to property tax. 8. The question is whether the petroleum storage tank is building or land? 9. In Blacks Law dictionary, Fifth Edition, the word 'building' has been defined thus: Structure designed for habitation, shelter, storage, trade, manufacture, religion, business, education and the like. A structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls and usually, but not necessarily, covered with a roof. 10. In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition, 'building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... masonary, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatever. The word 'building' was defined as an inclusive definition. Shri Salve, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that with the definition of the 'building' talks of a structure, it would be a structure analogous to a house, out-house, stable, shed or hut. The tank does not answer any of the descriptive particulars. The house or building, etc. must be constructed in accordance with the Master Plan and the Building Regulations conformable to the statutory requirements like drainage/sewage regulations. The construction of the tank is not required to be within the parameters of these regulations. Thereby tank cannot be construed to be a structure. Undoubtedly there is no independent definition of the word 'structure' in the Act. It is true that building, house or any out-house etc. required to be constructed in conformity with the building regulations and drainage and sewage requirements, etc. But every construction made need not necessarily be in conformity therewith. Take for instance a hut. A hutman cannot conform his construction to the statutory requirements. Equally many a time buildi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gislative futility is to be ruled out so long as interpretative possibility permits. 17. In S.P. Gupta, etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. [1981] Suppl. SCC. 87 interpreting Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court held that the Section was enacted in the second half of the last century, but its meaning and content cannot remain static. The interpretation of every statutory provision must keep pace with changing concepts and the values and it must, to the extent to which its language permits or rather does not prohibit, suffer adjustments through judicial interpretation so as to accord with the requirements of the fast changing society which is undergoing rapid social and economic transformation. The language of a statutory provision is not a static vehicle of ideas and concepts and as ideas and concepts change, as they are bound to do in any country like ours with the establishment of a democratic structure based on egalitarian values and aggressive developmental strategies, so must the meaning and content of the statutory provision undergo a change. It is elementary that law does not operate in a vacuum. It is not an antique to be taken down, dusted, admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law and fact. 21. At page 2640 it is stated thus: Structure (Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956(c.60), Section 8(t). Within the meaning of this provision a structure must be an entity in itself, although not necessarily a building in itself, adapted to the particular purpose it serves. The mere use of part of a building for a qualifying purpose is not sufficient....The word, however, is wide enough in this context to include erections that would not normally be described as buildings. 22. In Cardiff Rating Authority and Cardiff Assessment Committee v. Guest Keen Baldwin's Iron and Steel Company Ltd. [1949] 1 Kings Bench Division 385. construing the word in the nature of building or structure within the meaning of the plant and machinery (Valuation for Rating) Order, 1927, Schedule I, Class 4, which describes various items, in the Courts of Appeal, Denning L.J. considering whether blast furnaces, melting furnaces and coke ovens are structures, held thus: in the nature of structure , and a structure is often not a building; a crane gantry or a turnable is a structure, but not a building. Jenkins, J. held that it is not possible to give an exhausti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long, nearly 3 feet in diameter, weigh 3 1/4 tons and are placed horizontally one above the other. No one looking at one of those by itself would say it was a structure or in the nature of a structure. It is just a piece of plant. The accumulator, which is a metal tank 36 feet long, 8 feet in diameter, weighing 13 tons and resting in a steel cradle on reinforced concrete piers. Contrast this with the crude sattler, which is metal tank 38 feet long, 9 feet in diameter, weighing 46 tons and rests on reinforced concrete piers. The only appreciable difference between these two tanks is that a crude settler weighs 46 tons and the accumulator 13 tons. Yet the Lands Tribunal has found that the crude settler is in the nature of a structure, but that the accumulator is not. The reason the Tribunal give for the distinction is that the transport of the crude settler to the site should be regarded as a feat of engineering , but that the transport of the accumulator could not be so regarded. 1 do not think that is the right test. I should have thought it was a feat of engineering in each case. In any case, it is a mistake to substitute the test feat of engineering for the words of the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be rated, but that the metal cylinder was not in the nature of a building or structure, within Class 4 of the Schedule to the plant and Machinery (Valuation for Rating) Order, 1927, being a moveable piece of apparatus and, accordingly, was not liable to be rated as a 'tank'. On appeal Lord Evershed M.R. held that the installation on the hereditament was in its entirety, including the metal cylinder, a 'tank' for the purposes of the Order of 1927, and, since the whole of it was in the nature of a structure and was rateable to tax in its entirety. On further appeal the House of Lords in Shell-max B.P. Ltd. v. Holyoak (Valuation Officer) [1959] 1 Weekly Law Reporter 188 held per majority that the metal cylinder alone did not fall to be rated as part of the hereditament. It was a tank housed in a structure and not part of a tank formed by the whole installation, and reversed the decision of the Courts of Appeal. In that regard while construing whether underground petrol storage tank was a building or structure, majority of the House of Lords rejected the theory of functional entity but accepted physical entity as a test. While so construing the order, it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sically fastened; it may also mean, superincumbent upon. Thus, in citing the judgment of Cockburn, CJ., Laing v. Bishopswearmouth 3 Q.B.D. 299 that whatever is 'attached' to premises has to be estimated for the purpose of ascertaining the rating value. 27. In Rating Valuation Practice by Bean and Lockwood, fifth Edition, at page 191, it is stated thus: That physical attachment to the soil was a relevant consideration but not an essential condition of rateability in the case of the plant and machinery referred to in Class 4 of the Order as buildings or structures or in the nature thereof. The general range of things referred to in Class 4 considered of built or constructed things of substantial size; normally they would be built or constructed on the hereditament itself and would normally remain permanently in situ but might have a limited degree of motion in use, whether in relation to the hereditament or between different parts of themselves. He relied on the question of movability considered in Cardiff's case already referred to at p. 192, it is stated thus: A further factor which arose directly out of the Cardiff's case was that the Court of Appeal th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above discussion it is undoubted that if the tanks are situated within a Plant they would be integral part of the plant and get exempted from assessment Under Section 154 of the Act but there exist no such plant on the demised site. It is also equally undoubted that harmonious construction must be adopted consistent not only with the principles of taxation to make rateable value but also those relating to income-tax, wealth-tax etc. In New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. the Constitution Bench was concerned with levy of the property tax on textile factories at flat rate under Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 whose constitutional validity was impugned by Article 14 which this Court held to be ultra vires. It is not of much assistance to the respondent. 31. K.N. Subramanian Chettiar v. M. Chidambaram Servai [1940] Mad. 527, is also not of much assistance to the respondent. Therein the question was whether machinery is a movable property or immovable property within the meaning of Section 3, Expl. 1 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was held in determining whether or not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 4 AIR Nagpur 224 the machinery belonged to (A) was erected on the land belonged to (B). The question was whether the machinery formed part of the land of (B). The Division Bench laid down two tests to determine whether it was attached to the land and thereby became immovable property, namely, the degree or mode of annexation and the object of annexation. Of the two tests the latter is the more important, and it is a question of fact to be determined upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case. In that case it was held that the (A) did not intend to annex the machinery to the land as a permanent attachment. Therefore, it was held that it is not an immovable property. This ratio in these cases is also not of any assistance to the respondent. 32. The tanks, though, are resting on earth on their own weight without being fixed with nuts and bolts, they have permanently been erected without being shifted from place to place. Permanency is the test. The chattel whether is movable to another place of use in the same position or liable to be dismantled and re-erected at the later place? If the answer is yes to the former it must be a moveable property and thereby it must b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
