9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay any tax to the Municipal Council of Bellary in respect of the properly in question on the ground of Article 285 of the constitution, the Constitution, the Court withdrew the suit under Article 228 from the Bellary Court and has itself disposed it of. It has passed a decree against Union of India as owner if the Southern Railway in favour- of the Municipal Council Bellary. Hence the former has preferred this appeal] to this Court. The District of Bellary was a part or the erstwhile Madras state under Section 4 of The Andhra State Act, 1953, Central Act XXX of 1953 a good portion of the Bellary District was added to the State of Mysore (row Karnataka) on and from October 1, 1953 whereupon it caused to be a part of the State of Madras. The Bellary Municipal Council was realizing certain municipal taxes in respect of the Railway properties in accordance with Section 8! of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. The property belonged to the erstwhile Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway owned by a non-Government 3-549CI/78 company. Subsequently the said Railway was taken over by the Central Government. But even thereafter taxes were being realized by the Municipal Council in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdance with Section 64 of to 1933 Act. We may in passing just mention here total the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964 replaced the Mysore Municipality Act, 1933 on and from April 1, 1965. But it is of no consequence for the purpose of deciding this case which is concerned with the periods prior to 1965. It would thus be seen that the Southern Railway which was the A succcssor-in-interest of the Government owned Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway did not dispute its liability to pay the municipal tax upto 24.10.1955 when the Bellary district continued to be governed by the Madras Act, 1920. Even for sometime thereafter the liability to pay the tax was not disputed. But that is neither here nor there , as no question of estoppel could or did arise in this case. These claim in the present suit, however, was resisted on the ground that the Government owned Railway property was not liable to pay any is of the local authority in view of the constitutional bar created by clause (l) of Article 285 and it is not saved by clause (2) thereof. The stand of the Municipal Council was that it was covered by the saving clause (2) of Article 285. The Civil Judge, Bellary had settled several iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause (2) of Article 285. We shall presently show that neither of the two contentions of Mr. Ramamurthi is well founded and fit to be accepted. Article 285 reads as follows:- "(l) The property of the Indian shall, save in so for as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by authority within a State. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall, until Parliament by law otherwise provides, prevent any authority within a State from levying any tax on any property of the Union to which such property was immediately before the commencement of this (Constitution liable or treated as liable so long as that tax continues to be levied in that State" The property of the Union is exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State. But the Parliament may by law provide otherwise. and then any tax on the property of the Union can be imposed and levied in accordance with the said law. But then an exception has been carved out in clause (2). The exception is not meant for levying any tax. On such property by any State, but it is merely for the benefit of any authority including the local authority like the Municipal Council ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution and its continuance in fore after the commencement of the Constitution is affected to the extent it contravenes or is repugnant to the said provision. The Act of 1941 creating the liability of the Railways to taxation by local authorities was passed by the then Central Legislature which was a Federal Legislature of India. The present Central Legislature, namely, the Parliament has not enacted any law after coming into force of the Constitution making any provision affecting the-exemption of the property of the Union from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority. within a State The 1941 Act IS repugnant to clause (1) of Article 285. It is neither a law made by Parliament nor a Law made by the Central Legislature after the advent of the Constitution. In either view of the matter it is not a law covered by the phrase "save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide" occurring in clause (1) of Article 285. There is an additional reason for rejecting the argument of Mr. Ramamurthi in this regard. If the contention as made were to hold good it will make clause (2) of Article 285 almost nugatory. We therefore? hold that the property in question is exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 can by a rule of construction be read as referring to the Mysore Act of 1933 in the changed circumstances of the case. But that is not all. The real difficulty in the way of the Municipal Council is presented by the expression "that State" occurring at the end of clause (2) of Article 285. The plain and simple meaning which must be culled out from the said expression in the context of the other phraseology in clause (2) is that the local authority can claim protection under clause (2) if it is a local authority in the same State in which it was before the advent of the Constitution. There does not seem to be any ambiguity in this matter and there is, therefore, no escape from the position that the Pellagra Municipal Council in the city of Bellary which was a local authority within the State of Madras cannot take the advantage of clause (2) as at the time when it was making the claim for realization of the tax it was a part of the Miser state. It is neither necessary nor advisable for us to speculate or hazard a surmise to find out a reason for making this distinction between the right of a local authority continuing to be a local authority in the same state and being p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
