TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's IT/ITES SEZ premises were liable to property tax at the commercial rate prescribed for IT park, cyber city/park, or at industrial rates; and (ii) whether the revision filed by the Municipal Corporation could be entertained despite delay and whether the impugned order suffered from violation of natural justice.
Issue (i): whether the petitioner's IT/ITES SEZ premises were liable to property tax at the commercial rate prescribed for IT park, cyber city/park, or at industrial rates.
Analysis: The charging provision under Section 87 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 authorises levy of property tax having regard, inter alia, to the purpose for which the property is used, its location, and other relevant factors. The notification dated 11.10.2013, as amended on 03.03.2014, created specific rates for IT park, cyber city/park at 50% of the commercial space rate, and also permitted taxation on the basis of different usage where premises were used for mixed purposes. The SEZ statute did not exempt property tax, and its general exemption scheme did not override the municipal tax regime. The industrial policy could not control or override the taxing statute and notifications. The court also held that taxation had to follow actual user of the premises, including separate treatment for residential or hospitality use within the SEZ.
Conclusion: The petitioner's SEZ premises were correctly subjected to property tax on the basis of actual use, and the commercial rate applicable to IT space was validly applied.
Issue (ii): whether the revision filed by the Municipal Corporation could be entertained despite delay and whether the impugned order suffered from violation of natural justice.
Analysis: Section 140 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, 1963, and the statutory scheme does not imply such exclusion. The court applied the principles governing condonation of delay and held that the 53-day delay in filing the revision could be condoned, particularly where a matter of public revenue and a substantial legal issue was involved. On natural justice, the petitioner had participated in the appellate and revisional proceedings and was granted opportunity of hearing; a different conclusion on merits by the revisional authority did not amount to denial of natural justice.
Conclusion: The delay in filing the revision was rightly condoned, and no violation of natural justice was made out.
Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was upheld, and the challenge to levy of property tax at the applicable commercial rate on the petitioner's IT space in the SEZ failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the municipal taxing statute fixes property tax with reference to actual use and related factors, SEZ status or industrial policy cannot displace the statutory tax regime in the absence of a specific exemption, and delay in revision may be condoned where the Limitation Act is not expressly excluded by the special statute.
TaxTMI 
