9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or short). This question arises on the interpretation of the word 'building' in the Act. 2. 'Building' is defined under Clause (2) of Section 3 of the Act to mean "any shop, house, hut, outhouse, shed or stable, whether used for the purpose of human habilitation or otherwise and whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, thatch, metal or any other material whatever and includes a wall and a well". 3. The question crops up in the following circumstances. 4. Respondent Board (Bhakra Management Board) is constituted by the Central Government under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Board was so constituted for administration, maintenance and operation of various works as described in the section. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 242 of the Act, the Government of Punjab imposed within the limits of the Notified Area Committee, Nangal township a tax payable by the owner of the building at the rate specified in the schedule. This schedule is as under: S. No. Description of property Rate of tax 1. Building and lands having annual rental value - (i) not exceeding Rs. 840 No Tax (ii) exceeding Rs. 840 but not exceeding Rs. 1,800 12+ per cent (iii) exceeding Rs. 1,800 15 per cent Now when the Committee raised bill for house tax clubbing quarters or . bungalows adjoining to each other as one building, the Board objected to the same contending that each individual quarter/bungalow occupied by its employees has to be treated as separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e building which has been sub-divided though let out to various persons. She said even though there were different occupiers, ultimate source of title-holder was the Board and the Committee was justified in imposing house tax collectively on the building. She said it was for the Committee to decide if block of quarters constituted one building or not. Lastly, it was submitted that the Board itself was not the owner of the building as ownership vested in the State of Punjab and the Board was merely an occupier of the building which had been given to it for occupation of its staff and their being one occupier, whole block could be assessed as one building treating it as one unit. 9. We do not think that the Committee is right in its approach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
