LexAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 11 S.C.R. 172 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5360-5363of2013) DECEMBER 16, 2016 [RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - ss. 145A, 127(1), 2(5), (30), (34AA) - Levy of property tax on mobile towers - Held: Mobile towers comes within the fold of 'land and building' appearing in Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule - Power of taxation on mobile tower is vested in the State Legislature under Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule - Tax would be payable by the occupier and not the owner of the land and building - Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011 - s. 145A - Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 - Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Constitution of India - Entry 49, List II. Seventh Schedule. Disposing of all the appeals, writ petitions and the transferred cases, the Court HELD: 1.1 The meaning of any Legislative Entry e.g. "Taxes on lands and buildings" (Entry 49 of List II) should not be understood by reference to the definition of the very same expressions appearing in a statute traceable to the particular Legislative Entry. In the instant case, though the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 defines the expressions "land" and "building", it would be self defeating to understand the meaning and scope of Entry 49 of List II by reference to the definition clauses in the Gujarat Act. Definitions contained in the statute may at times be broad and expansive; beyond the natural meaning of the words or may even contain deeming provisions. Though the wide meaning that may be ascribed to a particular expression by the definition in a statute will have to be given effect to, if the statute is otherwise found to be valid, it will, indeed, be a contradiction in terms to test the validity of the statute on the touchstone of it being within the 172 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. GTL 173 INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Legislative Entry, by a reference to the definition contained in A the statute.(Para 14] (181-C-E] 1.2 The second aspect, is one concerning the permissible operation of two different statutes relatable to two different Entries in List I or II or even in List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This has been acknowledged by the High Court, in the impugned Order, by accepting that even if a mobile tower is a part of the apparatus pertaining to "telegraphs" covered by Entry 31 of List I, yet, the Gujarat Act could still co-exist as a statute levying a tax on lands and buildings so long and if only mobile towers can come within the scope and ambit of the said expressions "land and building" in Entry 49 of List II. The endeavour, therefore, must be to trace out the true meaning of the expressions "land and building" appearing against Entry 49 of List II by a correct application of the parameters and principles governing the interpretation ofa Constitutional provision specially an Entry in any of the legislative fields under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (Para 15](181-F-H; 182-A] 1.3 The fields of taxation on which the Union Parliament and State legislatures are competent to enact legislations to meet the constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution are clearly indicated in the respective Lists. While there can be no encroachment either way, it is possible that in a given situation though there may be some similarity between the taxes levied by a Central and a State enactment, both can co-exist having regard to the subject of the levy. A tax on income derived from land and a tax on the land itself wherein the income or earning therefr.>m forms the basis of the rates of the levy of tax. Even if it is assumed that the cellular operators are right in contending that mobile towers are covered by the field "telegraphs" (Entry 31 of List I), it cannot be said that if mobile towers can come within the fold of Entry 49 of List II, such a legislation would be legislatively incompetent. [Para 20) [184-F-H] 1.4 A cardinal principle of interpretation of a Legislative Entry in any of the Lists of the Seventh Schedule is to treat the words and expressions therein as inclusive in meaning and give the same all possible flexibility instead of restricting such meaning to the perceptions contemporaneous with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.