VISHAL EXIM PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 2. 2. 99 accompanied by notice of demand for payment of land and building tax. A short & simple submission was made at the threshold to the effect that the petitioner is not an assessee at all in regard to the property yet liability has been fastened on him showing land & building tax arrears without issuing any notice to him. On this averment a show cause notice was issued to the respondent but during pendency of this writ petition, an application for impleadment was filed by one Shri Giriraj Kumar which was allowed in the interest of justice as he described himself as a public spirited person and raised a grievance that the Department of land and building Tax is not properly taking follow up action to realise the tax arrears from the petitioner due to some oblique motive. In order to arrive at a just conclusion and to guard the revenue of the Government, he was allowed to be impleaded. This is how this matter came up today and the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the Department of Land and Building Tax as also the counsel for the impleaded respondent was heard at some length. Having heard them it is more then obvious that the petitioner although claims himself not to be the owner of the property against which arrears of tax is demanded, he is more than a mere occupant of the land. He however claims that the sale-deed in his favour for the property has not been registered and thus title has not passed on to him so as to give rise to an occasion for the Department of Land and Building Tax, to raise a claim of arrears towards land and building tax.

(2.) TO counter this argument, learned counsel for the impleaded respondent Mr. Panday submitted that even though the petitioner may not really be the owner of the land in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, yet he is liable to deposit the land and building tax if he is a beneficiary of the property in any manner and in support of his submission he relied upon a Division Bench judgment delivered in the matter of Ms. K. K. Complex Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (1 ). In the said judgment and order, it is clearly the ratio that the liability to pay the tax devolves upon the person who although may not have any title to the property but if the is enjoying the property in any manner even by receiving the rent, he would be liable for the payment of land & building tax. Attention of this Court was specifically drawn to para 7 of the this said judgment which lays down as follow: " (7)The question as to whether the company is liable to pay the tax of not, is to be decided by referring to the provisions of the Rajasthan (Land & Building) Taxes Act, 1964 (for short `the Act' ). The term `owner' is defined in Sec. 2 (10) of the Act it is an inclusive definition. It takes within this sweep any person who receives rent or who would be entitled to receive the rent. The definition makes it very clear that it has nothing to do with the provisions of other Acts, namely, the Transfer of Property Act and the Income - Tax Act. This is so because the liability to pay the tax arises in view of the provision of Sec. 3 of the Act which is the charging section. The owner of the property is liable to pay the tax. As stated above, the definition of `owner' takes within its sweep any person who receives the rent. Such person need not have legal title to the property in his favour. Even a person within inchoate title in the property, if he is entitled to receive the rent, he would be `owner' within the meaning of the term defined in Sec. 2 (10) of the Act. In view of this inclusive definition, in a given case, even a person without any title, whatsoever, and who might have been in unlawful possession of the land, may become liable to pay the tax if it is shown that he in fact receives the rent. Therefore, in view of this position of the provisions of the Act, arguments based on the jurisprudential concept of ownership of property and the attempt to butteress the same by referring to decisions under the Income-Tax Act and under the Transfer of Property Act, has no merit and the same cannot be accepted. "