Property tax exemption denied for warehousing corporation godowns; separate corporate identity defeated Union property claim under Article 285.

A statutory warehousing corporation's godowns within municipal limits were not exempt from property tax merely because the corporation was an instrumentality of the State. Article 285 applies only to property that is factually shown to be property of the Union of India, and the corporation's separate legal identity prevented its assets from being treated as Union property on a bare legal characterization. The municipal exemption provisions also did not apply because they were confined to property vested in the Municipal Corporation and tax primarily leviable by it. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the property tax levy was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether godowns owned by the Warehousing Corporation and situated within municipal limits were exempt from property tax on the footing that they were property of the Union of India under Article 285 of the Constitution of India, or were exempt under the relevant municipal provisions.

Analysis: Exemption under Article 285 depends on the property being that of the Union of India, which is a question of fact requiring a factual foundation. The Corporation established under the Warehousing Corporation Act may be an instrumentality of the State, but it has a separate and independent identity, so its property cannot be treated as Union property merely by legal characterization. The exemption provisions in the municipal laws were also inapplicable because they applied only where the property vested in the Municipal Corporation and tax was primarily leviable by that Corporation. The appellant Corporation did not satisfy those conditions, and the relevant provisions did not extend to a statutory corporation of this kind.

Conclusion: The claim of exemption failed, and the levy of property tax was upheld.

---