BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition has been filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruverambur, Trichy, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of R-l in G.O.Ms. No. 30, MAWS Dept., dated 22.02.2005, to forbear the authorities from levying property tax for the period prior to 04.10.1999 and to direct the Panchayat to levy property tax in respect of the buildings belonging to the petitioner on and from 04.10.1999, the date of withdrawal of the instructions issued by the Government of Tamilnadu in its Memorandum No. 96770/C1/65-7, dated 02.11.1965. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the first instance, would highlight upon the factual aspects by submitting that the petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking, engaged in the manufacture of Boilers, Boiler components, Auxiliaries, Valves, etc. and that it had put up quarters for the purpose of accommodation of some of its employees. It actually provided all the amenities and facilities required for the upkeep and maintenance of the factory as well the township wherein the quarters situate. In fact, all major requirements of the township including provision of water, drainage facilities, laying of roads and maintenance of the same are met only by the petitioner by way of drawing a budget of its own and never, any of the facilities was provided by the third respondent-Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner sought for exemption from the Government/R1 with regard to levy of taxes/property tax in respect of its township. Pursuant to the same, by Memo dated 02.11.1965, R1 had requested the District Collector, Trichy, to advise the Panchayat concerned not to levy tax in respect of the petitioner's township. While so, by demand notice dated 14.10.1987, R-2 had called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,07,362.50 purported to be the property tax for the township. Even though the petitioner addressed the said authority explaining about the earlier instruction of the Government to the Panchayat not to levy property tax pending decision on their application for grant of exemption, R-2 had issued a Notice, dated 10.06.1987, threatening to take distraint action against the petitioner, whereupon, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 7214 of 1987 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear R-2/Executive Officer of the Koothappar Panchayat from proceeding against the petitioner pursuant to the said notice. While disposing of the said petition by order, dated 26.09.1994, this Court had directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders only after taking into account the objections of the petitioner in the reply to the show-cause notice. However, the third respondent, without even properly considering the objections of the petitioner, by communication dated 15.06.1995, intimated levy of property tax to the tune of Rs. 86,50,890/- for the period from 1987-88 to 1994-95 and stated that, within one week of receipt of the communication, if aggrieved, the petitioner should file revision petition before the appropriate authority. Questioning the same, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 15477 of 1995 and an order of stay of all further proceedings was granted in favour of the petitioner and the same was also subsequently made absolute. Aggrieved by the absolute interim stay, R-3 filed W.A. No. 120 of 1996 which was taken up together for disposal along with W.P. No. 15477 of 1995 filed by the petitioner. By Judgment dated 20.02.1996, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file its objection on the Notice, dated 15.06.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted its objections, however, the authority had sent a reply, dated 18.03.1996, stating that there is no exemption for levy of property tax and that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 97,53,870/- towards property tax for the period between 1987 and 1996. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority was dismissed, whereupon, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 6401 of 1999 challenging the demand made. By Orders dated 21.04.2004, while disposing of the writ petition, the Court had permitted the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Government, if so advised, pointing out all the facts and, in turn, the Government was also directed to consider the representation and pass orders within three months from the date of representation. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dated 14.05.2004, to the Government/R1 detailing about the applicability of exemption in its favour as it was extended to a similar entity viz., Salem Steel Plant, however, the first respondent, by the impugned proceedings, dated 22.02.2005, unfairly rejected the said representation by stating that the facts and circumstances of the case are not similar between the petitioner and Salem Steel Plant. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) After highlighting upon the factual scenario, learned Senior Counsel would submit that both the petitioner and Salem Steel Plant being Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the authorities/Government cannot discriminate between the two companies in the matter relating to levy of property tax. According to him, in the case of Salem Steel Plant, the instructions issued by the Government in the year 1976 not to levy property tax came to be withdrawn only with effect from 12.09.1996. In other words, the Government had instructed the Panchayat concerned to levy property tax in respect of the buildings owned by Salem Steel Plants only from 12.09.1996. Therefore, when the Government, by Memo dated 02.11.1965, had granted property tax-exemption in favour of the petitioner by instructing the Panchayat accordingly, such exemption having been withdrawn only from 04.10.1999, the crucial date for levy of property tax should be only 04.10.1999 and it should not be made retrospectively from 1987-88. Moreover, even though the authorities take a ground that both the petitioner and Salem Steel Plants are different, in none of the proceedings, they could clarify or explain as to how the case of Salem Steel Plant is different from that of the petitioner. Thus, when the authorities are not able to clarify in clear terms as to on what basis both the companies are not entitled to same treatment, retrospective levy of property tax for the petitioner and prospective levy of the same in favour of Salem Steel Plants only exhibits a clear discrimination between PSUs on the part of the authorities; hence, the case of the petitioner deserves all acceptance, he pleaded.

(3.) Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R-l and Mr. V. Suthakar as well as Mr. N.S. Nandakumar, appearing for Respondents-2 and 3 respectively.