PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM) Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two cases, RSA bearing No.1770 of 2011 and CWP No.9046 of 2011 at the instance of BSNL.

(2.) Mr. Anil Rathee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioners submitted that the respondent-Board had asked the appellant/petitioners payment of amount on account of service charges for the periods i.e. 2002-03, 2003-04 vide notice dated 09.06.2004 and of subsequent period from 01.04.2004, on the premise that exemption available under Article 285 (1) of the Constitution of India is only applicable to the Government properties. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing Civil Suit No.230 of 2005, which has been dismissed by both the Courts below. Against the aforementioned judgments and decrees, regular second appeal has been filed and the writ petition has been filed qua subsequent issue of notice dated 23.01.2009 claiming an amount of Rs. 5,28,210/- (Annexure P-1).

(3.) He further submitted that since beginning the stand of the BSNL is that the property belongs to the Central Government and therefore, the exemption granted is applicable. Even as per the provisions of Section 99 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, certain buildings are exempted from payment of rates/taxes and as per Section 97 of the Act, every Board shall be deemed to be municipality for the purposes of the Municipal Taxation Act, 1881, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and the impugned order, as the Cantonment Board cannot demand service charges by formulating the following substantial questions of law:-