1997 (1) TMI 549 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms property tax ruling in Gwalior appeal

Central Indian Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Versus State of M.P. And Another

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in dismissing the writ petition challenging the assessment and recovery of house tax on the appellant's ... - Issues: Assessment and recovery of house tax under the Gwalior Municipalities Act, applicability of notification issued in 1945 after the repeal of the Gwalior Act by the 1954 Act, imposition of tax on buildings within municipal limits, interpretation of provisions of the Gwalior Act and the 1954 Act, inclusion of additional industrial area within municipal limits, dismissal of writ petition by High Court, rejection of contentions by the appellant, new contention raised by the appellant regarding the area not included in the notification of October 1954.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the High Court's judgment dismissing the writ petition challenging the assessment and recovery of house tax on the appellant's factory and buildings in Gwalior. The appellant argued that the 1945 notification under the Gwalior Act was no longer valid after the repeal by the 1954 Act. The High Court held that the notification was not entirely inconsistent with the 1954 Act, except for the statutory allowance of 10% deduction. The High Court directed the municipality to allow the deduction of 10% from the gross annual letting value while assessing the tax, stating that there was no clear averment in the petition regarding the assessment method.2. Another contention raised was that the notification did not apply to the area where the appellant's properties were located. The High Court rejected this argument, citing Section 7(4)(a) of the 1954 Act, which states that municipal laws apply to any area added to the municipality. The High Court concluded that the 1945 notification applied to the area where the appellant's properties were situated, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.3. The appellant's counsel reiterated the rejected contentions before the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court found no reason to differ from the High Court's reasoning. Additionally, a new contention was raised by the appellant regarding the area's inclusion in the October 1954 notification, which was deemed inadmissible as it was not raised before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.