1975 (1) TMI 62 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether clause (i) of section 2(1A) is violative of article 14?

Whether there is any discrimination in relation to the assessments for the period prior to April 1, 1970 between pending cases and the cases in which assessment had already been completed?

Whether the Corporation in determining the rates of conservancy tax has to find out the total expense it would have to incur for the various purposes mentioned in section 129(b) in connection with the conservancy service and 'thereafter to raise that amount by fixing different rates of conservancy tax for various categories of properties?

Whether the Corporation would have to find out separately the expense required in respect of conservancy service for each category of property and thereafter to fix such rate of conservancy tax for a category of property as would be sufficient to meet the expense on the conservancy service for that particular category?

Held that:- The petitioner-company is in occupation of the underground strata of the land through which their electric supply lines had been laid. In order to hold that space from the Corporation, it was essential, according to the learned counsel that there should have been some agreement between the petitioner company and the Corporation or that the Corporation should have given its consent for that purpose. We are unable to accede to the above submission. Clause (a) of section 139(1) of the Corporations Act fastens the liability for payment of property tax on the actual occupier of the premises held immediately from the Government or from the Corporation. In order to attract the liability under the above clause, it is not essential that there should have been an agreement between the actual occupier and the Government or the Corporation for the holding of the premises or that the holding must be with the consent of the Government or the Corporation. The liability would accrue even if the premises vesting in the Government or the Corporation are occupied in pursuance of a statutory provision. The words "held immediately from the Government or from the Corporation signify only the party in whom the premises vest which are held by the actual occupier thereof. Contention has also been advanced by Mr. Tarkunde regarding the quantum of tax levied on and the extent of the land alleged to have been occupied by the petitioner-company for the underground supply lines. This is essentially a question of fact and would have to be agitated before the authorities concerned, including the appellate authority. As a result of the above, we dismiss writ petitions.