Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 824 - HC - Indian LawsDemand 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.
|