Karnataka High Court
Chief General Manager vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 6 February, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
W.P. No.18412/2011 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN :
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
( A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES)
O/O THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
TELECOM KARNATAKA CIRCLE
VIVEKANANDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560008 ...PETITIONER
( BY SRI Y HARIPRASAD, ADV.)
AND :
1. BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CORPORATION OFFICE, N R SQUARE
BANGALORE
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BHARATI NAGAR RANGE
BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI B V MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R1-3 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DECLARE
THAT THE PROPERTIES (LANDS AND BUILDINGS) BELONGS TO
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONER
ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX OR
2
SERVICE TAX AS PER ARTICLE 285 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA AND ANY DEMAND IN RELATION TO THE SAME ULTRA
VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court to declare that the properties (lands and buildings) which belong to the Central Government in occupation of the petitioner are exempted from payment of property tax and service tax as per Article 285 of the Constitution of India. They have also assailed the demand notice at Annexure-E as also the endorsement at Annexure-G to the petition.
2. The respondents have filed their objection statement opposing the prayer made in the instant petition.
3. In the light of the same, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
4. The matter in fact lies in a narrow compass so as to consider as to whether the properties belonging to the petitioner are exempted from the property tax or such 3 other tax that would be levied by the respondents. In that regard, the petitioner has relied upon Article 285 of the Constitution of India. The position as envisaged therein is not disputed by the respondents that insofar as the properties belonging to the Union, the respondents or any other authorities would not be entitled to levy property tax. The respondents however contend that since the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and if any properties are owned by them, the same cannot be considered as a property belonging to the Union and the petitioner in such event would not be entitled to claim exemption as contemplated under Article 285 of the Constitution of India.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner which is a company is in fact operating from a building belonging to the Union, no documents have been placed either before the authorities or before this Court to arrive at a conclusion on that aspect of the matter. This in fact would have to be considered by respondent No.2 in the event of the petitioner filing necessary documents to substantiate their 4 claim to claim exemption as provided under Article 285 of the Constitution of India.
6. Therefore, when that is the position, I am of the opinion that the two endorsements which are assailed herein would not call for interference at this juncture. However, the demand will not be enforced by the respondents till a decision is taken in that regard. Furthermore, the second prayer cannot be granted herein for the same reason that the documents are not available before this Court.
7. Hence, the petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner herein to file necessary documents with respondent No.2 to establish that the property wherein they are operating belongs to the Union. The said documents shall be filed along with certified copy of this order with respondent No.2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 shall thereafter look into the said documents and prima facie satisfy himself with regard to the same within the next period of four weeks. If there is prima facie satisfaction, the demand notice or the subsequent notices 5 would not be issued or demanded till a final conclusion is taken in the matter. Thereafter, respondent No.2 shall after providing opportunity to the petitioner by a considered order come to a conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
In terms of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms