TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Assessment Act, 1963 (the Act) defined owner to include any person for the time being receiving or entitled to receive whether on his own account or as agent, or trustee, guardian, manager, receiver for another person or for any religious, educational or charitable purpose, rent or profits from the non agricultural land or for the structure constructed on such land, in respect of which the word is used. Consequent upon amending Act 28 of 1974, with effect from 1st July, 1974, the definition of owner was amended and the following, so far as is relevant here, was added: and also includes in respect of the land owned by the State Government or the Central Government (i) the lessee, if the land has been leased out by that Government for any commercial, industrial or other non agricultural purpose ......... Section 3 is the charging section of the Act and provides for the levy of assessment on non agricultural land, to be paid by the owner of such land. Section 12 of the Act sets out the categories of land to which the Act does not apply. Prior to amending Act 28 of 1974, the Act did not apply to land owned by the State Government or the Central Government. Thereafter, it did not appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e State Government was entitled to levy and collect the non agricultural assessment from the appellant company so long as it continued to be a lessee of the Central Government in respect of the said land. It clarified that the assessment could be levied only upon land which was actually used for any of the specified purpose, namely, commercial, industrial or any other non-agricultural purpose, including residential purpose. What extent of the said land was so used and what was the appropriate rate applicable was a matter for the assessing authority to decide. The appellant company was permitted to file an appeal to the appellate authority under the Act against the impugned demands, wherein it would be open to the appellant company to establish the actual extent of land used for the aforesaid purposes. The applicable rate could also be ascertained in such appeal. It is against the principal judgment and order that all the appeals are really directed. The first submission of Mr. Adhyaru, counsel for the appellant company, was that, in fact, the appellant company was not a lessee of the Union of India in respect of the said land and that there was no lease in its favour. The submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruing Article 289, reference was made to Article 285 and it was said in the majority judgment that Article 285 imposed a ban, which was absolute and emphatic and there was no way in which a State Legislature could levy a tax upon the property of the Union of India. Article 289 was different by reason of clauses 2 and 3 thereof. In the next case cited by learned counsel, namely, Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors. vs. United Labour Union & Ors., 1997(9) SCC 377, this Court was dealing with which was the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment pertaining to an industry carried on by or under authority of the Central Government and it was held that the statutory corporation, Air India, was such a industry and the appropriate Government for the purposes of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, was the Central Government. Reliance was placed by learned counsel upon the propositions enunciated in paragraph 26 of the majority judgment, thus: (1) The constitution of the corporation or instrumentality or agency or corporation aggregate or corporation sole is not of sole material relevance to decide whether it is by or under the control of the appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, it was said, which are incorporated under the Companies Act, have a corporate personality of their own, distinct from that of the Government of India. The lands and the buildings in question in that matter were vested in and owned by the appellant. The Government of India only owned the share capital. In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India, 1970(1) SCC 248, it was held, A company registered under the Companies Act is a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. Property of the company is not the property of the shareholders. A shareholder has merely an interest in the company arising under its Articles of Association, measured by a sum of money for the purpose of liability, and by a share in the distributed profit. In Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs. State of Bihar, 1969(1) SCC 765, this Court held that an incorporated company has a separate existence and the law recognises it as a juristic person, separate and distinct from its members. We are, in the premises, left in no doubt that the State Government was entitled to levy non-agricultural assessment upon the said land and recover it from the appellant company. Learned counsel then submitted ....