HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annexure A-11 passed by the additional Property Tax Commissioner in revision as also other orders passed by the Assistant Property Tax Commissioner and the Property Tax Officer, assessing and demanding property tax from the petitioner in respect of the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Government company. The petitioner owns Bhilai Steel Plant in Bhilai. The petitioner has its mines and mining colonies at Rajhara and Jharandalli. The Property Tax Officer on 24th May 1969 demanded property tax for the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 in respect of lands and buildings in Bhilai Nagar and Rajhara and Jharandalli mining colonies. The petitioner filed a revision which was decided against the petitioner by the Assistant Property Tax Commissioner by his order dated 24th December 1969. The petitioner's contention in that appeal was that the notification applying the Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti kar Adhiniyam 1964, to Bhilai Nagar Industrial Township and Rajhara Jharandalli mining colony was vague and, therefore, it could not be given effect to It was also contended that the lands in Rajhara-Jharandalli mining colony vested in the Central Government and were exempt from taxation under section 6 of the Act. Both these contentions were negatived by the assistant Property Tax Commissioner, The view taken by the Assistant property Tax Commissioner was that the area in 15 villages mentioned in annexure R-4 was included in Bhilai Nagar industrial township and was covered by the notification. It was also held that the petitioner was liable for payment of property tax in respect of the land in Rajhara-Jharandalli mining colony because it was using that kind for mining purposes. The petitioner filed a revision which was decided by the Additional Property Tax commissioner by his order dated 7th October 1971. The aforesaid contentions were repeated before the Additional Property Tax Commissioner and were rejected. The Additional Property Tax Commissioner, however, differed from the Assistant Property Tax Commissioner with respect to the area which could be included within Bhilai Nagar industrial township. According to the Additional Property Tax Commissioner, 43 villages were included in this township.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same contentions before us which were raised before the Additional Property Tax Commissioner.