TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingh, Panel Lawyer For the Respondent/Corporation : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate C A V Order 1. In both the Writ Petitions, the issue arising for decision making is whether the petitioner, a cellular service provider, is liable to pay property tax in respect of or otherwise relating to under ground cable laid for the purpose of providing telephone services or other telecommunication facilities. 2. While WP No. 1055 of 2003 would seek quashment of the demand notice for payment of property tax by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, in WP No. 1273 of 2003, demand notice under assail has been issued by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 3. The petitioner has been granted licence by the Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, the petitioner would contend that the local authority is not permitted to levy any compensation/premium for the use of land for laying down cables by the licencee under the Act, 1885. According to the petitioner, there is no provision in the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (henceforth 'the Act, 1956') empowering any Municipal Corporation to levy any property tax/compensation in respect of laying down cables by a person who has been granted licence under the provisions of the Act, 1885. The petitioner would refer to a circular issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India under which there was no proposal for charging any ground rent for laying cables from the private telecom licencee over the national highways....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lic meeting was also convened for finalizing the rate of property tax. The respondents' counsel would refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anant Mills Vs. State of Gujarat {AIR 1975 SC 1234} to argue that a person who has laid under ground cable is the actual occupier of the land and is primarily liable for payment of property tax. 8. The main thrust of argument of counsel for the petitioner is on the basis that the petitioner being not the owner of the land in which under ground cables are laid, the demand of property tax from the petitioner falls foul of Section 132 (1) of the Act, 1956, which implies that the property tax is payable by the owners of building or land. In other words, the petitioner not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by legislative enactment over any street. 5 (31) "land" includes benefits arising out of land, houses and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to any thing attached to the earth and also land which is being built upon or is built upon or covered with water. 11. The Supreme Court, after dealing with competency of levying property tax on mobile towers decided the issue of levy of tax on mobile towers or levy on the yield from the land and building to conclude thus at para 31 :- "31. The measure of the levy, though may not be determinative of the nature of the tax, cannot also be altoge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act, 1956 to impose the subject tax. However, it is to be understood that Section 133 is for imposition of new tax and it is precisely for this reason, Section 133 (4) provides that nothing contained in this section shall apply to tax mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 132, which shall be charged and levied in accordance with Section 135. The property tax being charged under Section 132 (1)(a) read with Section 132 (6)(j), the argument resting on non-compliance of Section 133 has no force. 14. In the return filed by both the Municipal Corporations of Raipur and Bhilai, it has been stated on oath that the respective Municipal Corporation have passed a resolution to impose property tax for the use of land for laying....