Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE LONAVLA BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY OF LONAVLA, DISTRICT POONA,
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
09/03/1970
BENCH:
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA
BENCH:
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA
SIKRI, S.M.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 211 1970 SCR (3) 920
1970 SCC (1) 641
ACT:
Bombay District Municipal Act 3 of 1901-S. 59 Bombay
Municipal Boroughs Act 18 of 1905-S. 73-Scope of-Collection
of taxes from railway as consolidated tax under cl. (c)
second proviso instead of separate taxes under the other
provisions of the-two sections -Validty.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent Municipality, which at the time was governed
by the Bombay District Municipal Act 3 of 1901 levied a tax
on lands and buildings situated within its municipal limits
at 4 per cent of the annual rental value. However, no such
tax was levied on the buildings and lands of the G.I.P.
Railway situated within its limits in view of s. 135 of the
Indian Railways Act, 9 of 1890. In 1914,the Government of
India issued a notification under s. 135 persuant to which
the G.I.P. Railway administration was required to pay house
tax to the respondent. Upto 1916 the respondent
municipality used to draw water from the Railway’s reservoir
but constructed its own reservoir during that year. Both
prior to and after this date, no water rate was charged by
the respondent municipality from the railway.
On 4th May, 1916 the respondent promulgated new rules for
taxation and instead of charging separate house tax under s.
59(1)(i) or a general water rate under s. 59(1) (viii) of
the Act of 1901, it decided to charge a consolidated tax
assessed as a rate on buildings and lands in accordance with
clause (c) of the proviso to s. 59(i). Although the
respondent demanded this consolidated tax from the railway
in respect of its lands and buildings, the railway resisted
payment contending that under the notification of 1914,
house tax only was payable by it. On 26th July, 1917, the
Government of India issued a fresh notification under s. 135
of the Railways Act whereby the railway administration was
rendered liable to pay what was described as "tax on lands
and buildings". Thereafter the respondent charged the
railway the consolidated tax until some time in 1927 when
the G.I.P. railway was taken over by the Government. In the
rules promulgated on 4th May, 1916, the consolidated tax was
not chargeable on Government property. Relying on this
provision, an objection was raised that the charge of tax
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
was illegal when the railway had become Government property.
The respondent Municipality amended its rules and
promulgated fresh rules on 6th October, 1931 under the
provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 18 of 1925
under which enactment the respondent municipality had by
that time been constituted into a Borough. Under these rules
the exemption in respect of Government property was
deleted.In pursuance of these amended rules the respondent
started collecting from the railway the consolidated tax
assessed as a rate on its buildings and lands which was by
then being levied under the provisions of s.73 of the Act of
1925 that were similar to those of s.59 of the Act of 1901.
In 1940 the railway administration preferred an appeal under
s. 110 of the Act of 1925 against one of the demand notices.
Although the
921
First Court set aside the demand notice, an appeal was
eventually dismissed by the High Court with the remark that
the proper remedy to be sought was by means of a suit. The
Union of India which had become the owner of the railway,
field a suit in November 1954 for refund of the entire
amount which was collected by the respondent from the
railway in pursuance of the rules of 1931. The, Trial Court
granted a decree holding that the levy of this tax was void
inasmuch as, under the notification issued on the 26th July,
1917, only the rate on lands and buildings was payable by
the Railway Administration. On appeal, the High Court
disagreed with the trial court and set aside the decree.,
Oil appeal to this Court by a certificate under Art. 133 of
the Constitution.
HELD : Dismissing the appeal,
On the proper interpretation of the language used in two
Acts, the Rules, the notification, and taking into account
the circumstances under which the notification of 1917 was
issued, the only conclusion that could be arrived at was
that the Railway was made liable to the consolidated tax.
It is true that all taxes are not rates; but all rates are
taxes. A rate on buildings and lands is a tax on buildings;
so also any other tax -assessed as a rate on buildings and
lands becomes a tax on buildings and lands. It was not
possible to accept the submission of the appellant that the
expression "tax on buildings and lands" used in the
notification of 26th July, 1917 could only refer to a rate
on buildings and lands under clause (i) of s. 59(1) and
would not cover the consolidated tax referred to in clause
(c) of the second proviso. Although the tax under clause
(c) of the second proviso is not identical with and is
different in nature from,the rate on buildings and lands
imposed under clause (i), that circumstance does not imply
that it is not a tax on buildings and lands. The mere use
of the word "consolidated" cannot make any difference to
this interpretation. The intention appears to be that,
though the Municipality was empowered to impose four
different kinds of taxes, it was permitted under clause (c)
of the second proviso to simplify matters by having a single
tax on buildings and lands in lieu of those multiple -.axes.
Such single tax had to be assessed as a rate on buildings
and lands. This being the nature, it obviously becomes a
tax on buildings and lands, so that the notification of 26th
July, 1917 clearly makes the Railway liable to payment of
this tax. The position under the Act of 1925 is exactly the
same where also the language of clause (c) to the second
proviso is identical with that contained in the Act of 1901,
so that the liability imposed on the Railway by the
notification of the Government dated 26th July, 1917 under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
s. 135(1) of the Railways Act continued even under the Act
of 1925. [927 B-H]
Borough Municipality, Ahmedabad v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing
and Calico Printing Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1939 Bom. 478; Raza
Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampur,
A.I.R. 1962 Alld. 83, Municipal Council, Cuddappah v. M.,&
S.M. Ry. Co.. Ltd., A.IR 1929 Mad. 746. and Patel
Gordhandas Hargovindas v. Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad,
[1964] 2 S.C.R. 608; referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 10, 11, 1965
of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 26 of 1958 from
Original Decree.
L10Sup Cl (NP)/70 -14
922
L. M. Singhvi and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.
H. R. Gokhale, Y. S. Chitale, Janendra Lal and B. R.
Agarwala, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bhargava, J. The Union of India, as the owner of the Central
Railway, instituted a suit for refund of Rs. 2,76,967/-
collected as tax from the Railway Administration by the
respondent Municipality during the period from 1931 till the
institution of the suit in November, 1954. The facts
leading up to the suit are that the G.I.P. Railway, which
was a Private Company, had land situated within the limits
of the respondent Municipality. On this land, stood the
railway station, their Water Reservoir at Bhusi, bungalows
of Officers, and certain other buildings. There were also
vacant lands and some lands on which railway lines were laid
out. In this area, which belonged to the G.I.P. Railway,
the Railway Company itself built roads, supplied water from
its Bhusi Reservoir, arranged for the lighting, and provided
other services. In fact, up to the year 1916, the Railway
used to supply water even to the Municipality from its Bhusi
Reservoir on payment. The Municipality was governed, at
that time, by the Bombay District Municipal Act No. 3 of
1901 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1901") under
which a tax on lands and buildings situated within the
municipal limits used to be charged @ 4 per cent of the
annual rental value, but no tax was levied on the buildings
and lands of the G.I.P. Railway in view of section 135 of
the Indian Railways Act No. 9 of 1890. In the year 1914,
the Government of India issued a notification under s. 135
of the Railways Act declaring that the Administration of the
G.I.P. Railway shall be liable to pay, in aid of the funds
of the local authorities set out in the Schedule, the taxes
specified against each of those authorities. Against the
’lame of Lonavla Municipality, which is the respondent in
this case, the tax mentioned was house-tax. Thus, the
exemption granted to the Railway Administration was taken
away by this notification in respect of house-tax and house-
tax became payable by the G.I.P. Railway to the respondent.
In 1916, the respondent constructed its own water reservoir
and became independent of the Railway for water supply, but
no water rate was charged from the Railway even thereafter,
though water charges for actual quantities of water supplied
in three of the bungalows was charged from the occupants of
the bungalows. The rest of the Railway Colony continued to
be supplied with water from the Railway Reservoir at Bhusi.
On 4th May 1916, the respondent promulgated new rules for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
taxation and, instead of charging separate house-tax and
water rate it decided to charge a consolidated tax assessed
as a rate on
923,
buildings and lands in accordance with clause (c) of the
proviso to section 59(1) of the Act of 1901. Thereafter, it
appears that the respondent demanded this consolidated tax
from the Railway in respect of the Railway lands and
buildings. The Railway felt that, since, under the
notification of 1914, house-tax only was payable by the
Railway Administration, there was no justification for the
respondent to charge consolidated tax from it and,
consequently, protested against this payment. Thereafter,
on 26th July, 1917, the Government of India issued a fresh
notification tinder s. 135 of the Railways Act, whereby the
Railway Administration was rendered liable to pay what was
described as "tax on lands and buildings". On the issue of
this notification, the respondent started charging the
G.I.P. Railway this consolidated tax and this continued
until some time in the year 1927 by which time the G.I.P.
Railway was taken over by the Government and became a
Government undertaking. In the Rules promulgated on 4th
May, 1916, the consolidated tax described as a general rate
on buildings and lands was not chargeable on government
property. Relying on this provision in the Rules, an
objection was raised that the charge of the tax was illegal
when the Railway had become government property.
Subsequently, the respondent Municipality amended its Rules
and promulgated fresh Rules on the 6th October, 1931. By
this time, the respondent Municipality had been constituted
into a Borough under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act No.
18 of 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1925").
These new Rules were thus promulgated under this Act of
1925. Under these Rules, the exemption in respect of
government property to the charge of the general rate on
buildings and lands, which was contained in the Rules of
1916- was deleted and all lands and buildings within the
Municipal Borough became chargeable irrespective of their
being owned by the Government. A separate clause was
incorporated giving certain exemptions, but, since they do
not affect the case before us, they need not be mentioned.
In pursuance of these Rules of 1931, the respondent started
collecting the consolidated tax assessed as a rate on
buildings and lands of the Railway from it.
In the year 1940, the Railway Administration preferred an
appeal under section 110 of the Act of 1925 against one of
the demand notices issued in respect of this tax on the 6th
October, 1940. This appeal came up before the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate Western Division, Poona, who held that
the levy of this consolidated tax was ultra vires and set
aside the demand notice. On a revision by the respondent
under section 111 of the Act of 1925, the District and
Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, holding that the imposition of the tax was
valid. Against this decision, the Railway Administration
filed a revision
924
before the High Court of Bombay under section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, on 12th February,
1945, refused to exercise its special powers under section
115, C.P.C., with the further remark that the proper remedy
to be sought was by means of a suit.
Under these circumstances, the Union of India, which had
come to be the owner of this Railway under the name of the
Central Railway, filed the suit on 27th November, 1954 for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
refund of the entire amount which was collected by the
respondent from the Railway in pursuance of the Rules of 193
1. The trial court held that the levy of this tax was void
inasmuch as, under the notification issued on the 26th July,
1917, only the rate on lands and buildings was payable by
the Railway Administration. The suit for the refund filed
by the Union of India was, on this ground, decreed. On
appeal, the’ High Court disagreed with the trial court and
held that even the consolidated tax was payable in view of
the notification of 26th July, 1917, so that the tax had
been rightly collected. The High Court, thereupon, set
aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit.
It is against this decree that the Union of India has come
up in this appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the
Constitution.
In order to appreciate the submissions made by counsel
for parties in this appeal, it is necessary to set out
the relevant provisions of section 59 of the Act of 1901
and of section 73 of the Act of 1925 which are as follows :-
"Section 59 of the Act of 1901.
59. (1) Subject to any general or special
orders
which the State Government may make in this
behalf,
any Municipality-
many impose, for the purposes of this Act, any
of the following taxes, that is to say,
(i)a rate on buildings or lands or both,
situate within the municipal district;
(vii) a general sanitary cess for the
construction or maintenance, or both
construction and maintenance, of public
latrines, and for the removal and disposal of
refuse;
(viii) a general water-rate or a special
water rate or both for water supplied by the
Municipality, which may be imposed in the form
of a rate assessed on buildings
925
and lands, or in any other form, including
that of charges for such supply, fixed in such
mode or modes, as shall be best adapted to the
varying circumstances of any class of cases or
of any individual case;
(ix) a lighting tax;
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Provided further that-
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
(c) the Municipality in lieu of imposing
separately any two or more of the taxes
described in clauses (i), (vii), (viii) and
(ix) may impose a consolidated tax assessed as
a rate on buildings or lands, or both situate
within the municipal District."
"Section 73 of the Act of 1925
73. (1) Subject to any general or special
orders which the State Government may make in
this behalf and to the provisions of sections
75 and 76, a municipality may impose for the
purposes of this Act any of the following
taxes, namely:-
(i) a rate on buildings or lands or both
situate within the municipal borough;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
. . . . .
. . . . .
(viii)a general sanitary cess for the
construction and maintenance of public
latrines, and for the removal and disposal of
refuse;
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
(x) a general water-rate or a special water-
rate or both for water supplied by the
municipality, which may be imposed in the form
of a ’rate assessed on buildings and lands or
in any other form, including that of charges
for such supply, fixed in such mode or modes
as shall be best adapted to the varying
circumstances of any class of cases or of any
individual case;
(xi) a lighting tax;
. . . . .
. . . . .
926
Provided further that-
. . . . .
. . . . .
(c) the municipality in lieu of imposing
separately any two or more of the taxes
described in clauses (i), (viii), (x) and (xi)
may impose a consolidated tax assessed as a
rate on buildings or lands or both situated
within the municipal borough."
In the year 1914, the respondent Municipality had only
levied a rate on buildings an& lands under clause (i) of s.
5 9(1) of the Act of 1901. There was no question of
imposing a general or special water rate as the respondent
had no water works of its own and was taking water supply
from the G.I.P. Railway. It was in these circumstances that
the notification was issued by the Central Government dated
the 13th May, 1914 making the Railway Administration liable
to pay house-tax to the Municipality of Lonavla. The
notification was obviously intended to make the Railway
liable to pay the tax which had been imposed as a rate on
buildings and lands under s. 59(1)(i) of the Act of 1901 by
the respondent. Subsequently,, in the year 1916, the
respondent Municipality not only arranged for water supply
and imposed a general water rate, it proceeded to make rules
for imposition of a consolidated tax assessed as a rate on
buildings and lands under clause (c) of the second proviso
to S. 59(1) in lieu of the existing tax imposed as a rate on
buildings and lands under clause (i) as well as the water
rate, imposed under clause (viii) of s. 59(1). Thereafter,
the Central Government issued the notification dated 26th
July, 1917 under S. 135(1) of the Railways Act making the
G.I.P. Railway liable -to tax on buildings and lands
-imposed by the Lonavla Municipality. It is to be noted
that, in this notification, the Government used the word
"tax" and not the word " rate". The tax imposed under s.
59(1) was described as "a rate on buildings and lands". If
the intention of the Government had been that the G.I.P.
Railway should be liable to that tax only, it could have
used the word "rate" instead of the word "tax’ in the
notification. In fact, if the, notification had been left
untouched, the liability of the G.I.P. Railway would have
continued to be in respect of the rate on buildings or lands
because of the earlier notification of 1914, under -which
the Railway had been made liable to House-tax. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
notification of 26th July, 1917 made the Railway liable to
tax on buildings and lands obviously because the Government
intended that the Railway should be liable to the
consolidated tax under clause (c) of the second proviso to
S. 59(1). Clause (c) permits the imposition of a
consolidated tax assessed as a rate on buildings or lands,
or both. The moment a tax is assessed as a rate on
buildings or lands, it naturally becomes a tax
9 2 7
on building and lands. The fact that it was a consolidated
tax was immaterial. It was this consolidated tax which was
intended to be made payable by the G.I.P. Railway when the
Central Government used the expression "tax on buildings and
lands" in place of the earlier words "House Tax" and chose
not to refer to the liability being in respect of a rate on
buildings and lands. It is true that all taxes are not
rates but all rates are taxes. A rate on buildings and
lands is ’a tax on buildings, so also any other tax’
assessed as a rate on buildings and lands becomes a tax on
buildings and lands. We are unable to accept the submission
made by counsel for the appellant that the expression "tax
on buildings and lands" used in the notification of 26th
July, 1917 could only refer to a rate on buildings and lands
under clause (i) of s. 59(1) and would not cover the con-
solidated tax referred to in clause (c) of the second
proviso. It is true, as urged by him, that the tax under
clause (c) of the second proviso is not identical with, and
is different in nature from, the rate on buildings and lands
imposed under clause (i), but that circumstance does not
imply that it is not a tax on buildings and lands. The mere
use of the word "consolidated" cannot make any difference to
this interpretation. It is also significant that clause (c)
of the second proviso does not purport to lay down that the
consolidated tax will be the sum-total of the taxes
described in clauses (i), (vii), (viii) and (ix). The
consolidated tax envisaged by that clause is in lieu of
separate imposition of any two or more of the taxes
described in clauses (i), (vii), (viii) and (ix) which means
that the power to impose. this consolidated tax has been
given for the purpose of substituting it for the multiple
taxes which could be imposed under those clauses. This
consolidated tax cannot, therefore, be held to be of the
same nature as the taxes in all those clauses. The
intention appears to be that, though the Municipality was
empowered to impose four different kinds of taxes, it was
permitted under clause (c) of the second proviso to simplify
matters by having a single tax on buildings and lands in
lieu of those multiple taxes. Such a single tax had to be
assessed -as a rate on buildings and lands. This being the
nature, it obviously becomes a tax on buildings and lands,
so that the notification of 26th July, 1917 clearly makes
the Railway liable to payment of this tax. The position
under the Act of 1925 is exactly the same where also the
language of clause (c) to the second proviso is identical
with that contained in the Act of 1901, so that the
liability imposed on the Railway by the notification- of the
Government dated 26th July, 1917 under s.135(1) of the rail-
ways Act continued even under the Act of 1925.
It is also significant to note that the Rules, which we’re
framed by the Municipality under the Act of 1901 and by the
Municipal .Borough later under the Act of 1925 which were
promulgated on
928
the 4th May, 1916 and the 6th October, 1931 respectively,
described the tax as a general rate on buildings and lands
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
in rule 1. It is true that, in the heading of the Rules, the
expression used was that "the Rules were for the levy of a
consolidated rate on buildings and lands", but, in the main
provision, the tax was described only as "a general rate on
buildings And lands". A general rate on buildings and lands
is obviously a tax on buildings and lands and would,
therefore, be covered by the notification of the Central
Government dated 26th July, 1917.
Apart from this interpration which we have arrived at on the
basis of the language used in the two Acts, the Rules, and
the notification of the Central Government, there are two
circumstances which indicate that this must be the correct
construction of the notification issued by the Central
Government. The first circumstance is that, when this
notification was issued, the only tax which was being
imposed by the Lonavla Municipality which the Central
Government could have intended should become payable by the,
G.I.P. Railway was-the consolidated tax under clause (c) of
the second proviso. There was no other tax which could have
been covered by this notification. In fact, the
notification would be meaningless if we were to hold that
this consolidated tax is not covered by the expression "tax
on buildings and lands". This notification was issued while
the earlier notification of 1914 was ,already in existence
and, if the intention was to cover only the rate mentioned
in clause (i) of s. 59(1), there was no need to issue this
fresh notification as the liability of the Railway to pay
that tax already existed under that notification of 1914.
The second circumstance that we can take notice of is the
historical background in which this notification of 26th
July, 1917 was issued. It appears that, after the Rules for
imposition of this consolidated tax came into force in 1916,
the Municipality demanded payment of this consolidated tax
from the G.I.P. Railway. Thereupon,- the Agent of the
G.I.P. Railway Company wrote a letter to the Secretary,
Railway Board, Simla, on the 1st December, 1916, stating
that the Company did not agree that it should pay the new
consolidated tax as it comprised a house tax and a water
rate. The Company had its own arrangements for the supply
of water and it was obviously unfair that it should be
called upon tO pay any tax which includes a water rate, when
no municipal water was being consumed by the Railway at
Lonavla. The Secretary, Railway Board, forwarded this
letter to the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, General
Department, with a letter dated 12th December, 1916,
enquiring whether the Agent’s information was correct and,
if so, whether the Bombay Government had any remarks to
offer on the, Agent’s
92 9
contentions. On 11th May, 1917, the Secretary to the
Government of Bombay replied to the Secretary, Railway
Board, pointing. out that, originally, the Municipality,
proposed to levy a general water rate on all houses, in
addition to the existing house tax, but, on representations
from property owners of Lonavla and Khandalla, it had
decided to. impose a consolidated rate on buildings and
lands in lieu of the house-tax and the proposed general
water rate. Consequently, they were, levying, in lieu of
house tax, a consolidated rate, which included a general
water rate, on a sliding scale, on all properties situated
within the municipal limits. The water rate imposed was not
intended to cover expenses on any service rendered in the
nature of a general tax as opposed to a service tax. In
equity, the Railway Company’s property in Lonavla had no
better right to exemption than the properties of private
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
individuals who, although they did not take private pipe
connections, were paying the general water rate. In these
circumstances, a request was made to the Secretary, Railway
Board, to move the Government of India to declare the
Administration of the G.I.P. Railway liable to pay to the
Lonavla Municipality the consolidated tax on buildings--and
lands in lieu of the, housetax in respect of the railway
properties situated within the municipal limits. It was
suggested that the Schedule annexed to the notification
dated 13th May, 1914 may be amended accordingly. It was in
pursuance of this move by the Bombay Government that the
notification of 26th July, 1917 was issued by the Central
Government. That the notification of 26th July, 1917 was
issued in pursuance of this correspondence is clarified by
the Memorandum dated 17th August, 1917, with which a copy of
the new notification was forwarded by the Government of
India, Railway Department (Railway Board) to the Secretary
to the Government of Bombay. These circumstances, in which
the notification of 16th July, 1917 was issued, make it
plain that the Government of India, when they used the
expression ’-’tax on buildings and lands" in the
notification, intended to make the G.I.P. Railway liable to
the consolidated tax which had been imposed by the
Municipality under the Rules of 1916.
The decision of the Bombay High Court in Borough Munici-.
pality, Ahmedabad v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico
Printing Co. Ltd. (1) on interpretation of, section 73 and 1
1 0 of the Act, of 1925 also supports the view that we have
taken above. The, question that arose in that case was
whether the right of an appeal’ envisaged by using the
expression "in the case of a rate on buildings or lands or
both" in section 110 could be availed of in respect of, a
general water rate imposed under clause (x) of section 73(1)
which described that tax as a general water rate imposed in
the form of a.
(1) A.I.R. 1939 Bom. 478,
930
rate assessed on buildings and lands. It was held that
there was no -distinction between a rate on buildings or
lands and a tax in the form of a rate assessed on buildings
or lands. In the case before us, ,on that analogy, a
consolidated tax assessed as a rate on buildings and lands
cannot be distinguished from a tax on buildings and lands.
Reference may also be made to a decision of the Allahabad
High Court in Raza Buland Sugar Co., Ltd. Rampur v.
Municipal Board, Rampur(1) where it was held that a water
rate is a tax on buildings and lands and is not, in fact, a
service tax chargeable in respect of water supplied.
Counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of the
Madras High Court in Municipal Council, Cuddappah v. M & S.
M. Ry. Co. Ltd.(1); but that case is of no assistance as it
turned on the special language which had been used in the
Act and the notification which came up for consideration in
that case. In fact, the expression that had to be
interpreted was "property tax" and not "tax on buildings and
lands". We agree with learned counsel for the appellant
that much assistance cannot be derived from the decision of
this Court in Patel Gordhandas Hargovindas v. Municipal
Commissioner, Ahmedabad ( 3 ) which was relied upon by the
High Court. However, as we have held ,above, on the proper
interpretation of the language used in the two Acts, the
Rules, and the notification, and taking- into account the
circumstances under which the notification of 1917 was
issued, the -only conclusion that can be arrived at is that
the Railway was made liable to this consolidated tax, so
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
that the decision of the High Court is perfectly correct.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
R.K.P.S. Appeal
dismissed.
(1) A.I.R. 1962 Alld. 83.
(2) A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 746.
(3) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 608,
9 3 1