Court rules service charges on Posts and Telegraphs Department as tax, violating Constitution.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a Municipal Corporation, affirming the High Court's decision that the demand for service charges from the Posts and Telegraphs Department constituted a tax, violating Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court ruled that the demand was not a legitimate service charge as claimed by the Corporation, emphasizing that it exceeded the scope of services provided and encroached on the exemption of central government entities from state taxes under Article 285(1). The judgment reiterated that imposing taxes on Union properties was unconstitutional, upholding the respondents' exemption from such charges.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the demand for service charges is considered as a 'service charge' or 'tax' by the Corporation.
- If the demand is categorized as 'tax,' whether it violates Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by a Municipal Corporation against a High Court decision allowing a writ petition filed by respondents regarding service charges. The Corporation demanded service charges from the Posts and Telegraphs Department for services like water supply, street lighting, etc. The respondents argued exemption from taxes as a Central Government entity. The High Court held the demand as violative of Article 285 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the demand constituted a 'service charge' or 'tax.' The demand notice was based on circulars issued by the Government of India, but the Court ruled that administrative circulars cannot override constitutional provisions. The Court emphasized that the demand was akin to 'tax' and not 'service charge,' as no specific services were provided beyond what was already covered by other charges.

The Court referenced a previous case where it restrained a Municipal Corporation from demanding tax as service charges from railways, citing Article 285(1) of the Constitution. The judgment highlighted that central enactments, like the Railways Act, fall under the purview of Article 285(1) exemption from state taxes. The Court reiterated that the Corporation lacked the authority to impose tax on Union property, as it contravened Article 285(1). The judgment dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the demand for service charges was unconstitutional and lacked merit. The case law cited further supported the position that demands akin to taxes on central government properties were impermissible under Article 285(1) of the Constitution.

---