CHANDRALEKHA Vs. SECRETARY TO DEFENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are wife and husband who claim the benefit of, exemption from property tax; as has been provided all over the country for ex-servicemen, their wives and their widows. Exemption has been granted by the respective States as per the request made by the Kendriy a Sainik Board. Admittedly, the 2nd petitioner is an ex-serviceman and the 1st petitioner, his wife, who owns a property within the Cantonment area, wherein the petitioners have constructed a residential house bearing No. T.S. No. 538 Pt. of Cannanore Cantonment numbered as 90-E. The exemption is claimed for the said property, in which the petitioners are residing. The learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that on a request made by the Kendriy a Sainik Board, as is evidenced from Ext.P3, the Government of Kerala through the Local Self Government Department, exempted from property tax, residential buildings in the municipal area, constructed by the widows of ex-servicemen, who died in combat and ex-servicemen who were injured in combat. By Ext.P4, the said exemption was extended to ex-servicemen as also their widows. Ext.P5 extended such benefits to the Panchayat area also. By Ext.P6, even the wives of ex-servicemen were exempted, if the ex-serviceman along with his wife, is residing in the said house, with a further condition that, such exemption shall be applicable only to a single building for each individual.

(2.) The petitioners also rely on Ext.P12, by which, the Director, Directorate of Sainik Welfare had written to the Secretary Kendriy a Sainik Board; on a request made by the 2nd petitioner herein, directing extension of such privilege to ex-servicemen residing in the Cantonment area. The learned counsel pointedly refers to the obvious unfairness insofar as the petitioners, who have a house within the Cantonment area, under the Cantonment Board, constituted under the Cantonment Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006) is required to pay property tax while an ex-serviceman living nearby, but in a property coming under the Local Self Government Institution (LSGI) is exempted.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent Board however, refers to the general powers of taxation conferred on the Board under S. 66 of the Act of 2006. While sub-s.(1) mandates the sanction of the Central Government, to impose property tax and tax on trade, profession etc, sub-s.(2) specifically confers a power on the Board, to impose any tax, which under any enactment for the time being in force may be imposed by any municipality in the State, in which the Cantonment is constituted. S. 10 of the Act of 2006 also deems a Board, constituted under the Act to be a Municipality, under Clause (e) of Art. 243P of the Constitution of India. The provisions read together, according to the counsel, indicate that Board has power to impose tax when the State enactment provides for such imposition by the local authority; within which area the Board is also situated. The exemption notification of the LSG Department of the concerned State being not applicable to the Cantonment Boards, the plea is that no benefit could be granted on such exemption, being granted by the State. The Board is under the Central Government and subject to only orders passed by such Government