MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on November 27,1990

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. B.V.GOPINATH [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
T T G INDUSTRIES LIMITED MADRAS VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR [LAWS(SC)-2004-5-68] [REFERRED TO]
S KALEEM BASHA VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2014-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ASSESSMENT I [LAWS(KAR)-1999-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
M/S J.S.T. ENGINEERING SERVICES VS. CCE, JAMSHEDPUR [LAWS(CE)-2001-7-506] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT PAPER MILLS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE-II [LAWS(CE)-2001-9-556] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2002-12-126] [REFERRED TO]
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1999-2-60] [REFERRED 2.]
SURESH GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2017-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. KHOPOLI NEW TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-1991-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIA HAMDARD (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-352] [REFERRED TO]
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) VS. THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
HIMADRI CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2012-4-82] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. HUTCHISON MAX TELECOM P LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-496] [REFERRED]
AJAY KUMAR SHEVDY VS. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FACE CENTRAL RAILWAY AND [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN INDIA ENTERPRISES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR [LAWS(CE)-2001-10-448] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BHARAT CHANDRA ROUL [LAWS(ORI)-1995-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
SUB REGISTRAR VS. K VEERESWARA [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP OIL CORPORATION VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA BHADURI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
ALUMECO INDIA EXTRUSION LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-I [LAWS(CE)-2009-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NATH CHOUDHARY AND RAM DASS VS. NDMC [LAWS(DLH)-2011-10-150] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1994-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
MANCHHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
PRODIP ENGINEERING WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-V [LAWS(CE)-2007-4-189] [FOLLOWED]
AEGIS LOGISTICS LIMITED AND ANR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-233] [REFERRED TO]
WIRELESS VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2011-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
A.C.C. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-I [LAWS(CE)-2002-2-179] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SARSWATI STONE CRUSHERS VS. URJA VIBHAG [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
EKTA PANDEY VS. VICE CHANCELLOR BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION BANARAS [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1996-1-93] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1992-4-20] [RELIED ON]
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2000-8-111] [RELIED ON]
RAJODEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-2002-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
CHAKLESH SARSWAT VS. GENERAL MANAGER U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI URBAN HOUSE OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION J P JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1995-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
KM SUMAN UPADHYAYA VS. VICECHANCELLOR BIR BAHADUR SINGH PURVANCHAL UNIVERSITY JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2000-1-106] [REFERRED TO]
INOX AIR PRODUCTS LTD VS. RATHI ISPAT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-129] [REFERRED TO]
P B KARUNAKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
FOREST RANGE OFFICER KHUSHBOO ENTERPRISES VS. P MOHAMMAD ALI:FOREST RANGE OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-1993-5-52] [RELIED ON]
INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LTD VS. MUNICIPAL COOMMISSIONER OF GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2005-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-86] [REFERRED TO]
DINAKAR PROCESS VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(APH)-2015-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
AMULYA SINGH VS. NAGAREEYA SAHKARI BANK LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2001-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHBOO ENTERPRISES CALICUT VS. FOREST RANGE OFFICER PALAKKAD [LAWS(KER)-1992-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL MISHRA VS. PT RAVISHANKAR SHUKLA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(CHH)-2013-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI AIRTEL LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-99] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. VIDYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-1993-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. PRADIP OIL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-198] [REFERRED TO]
SUN DIRECT TV PVT LTD VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
GOVARDHAN GOYAL VS. RISHI RAJ SINGHAL [LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDN VS. CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM [LAWS(KER)-1993-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NATH CHOUDHARY RAM DASS VS. NDMC [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-142] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAR BHUSHAN NISRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-105] [REFERRED TO]
Junjamma VS. Bangalore Development Authority [LAWS(KAR)-2004-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT AND MRS ANJALI KARADKHEDKAR MEMBER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. VRUNDAVAN CO-OP HSG SOC LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2005-6-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave is against the judgment by the Divison Bench of the Bombay High Court dated March 27/28, 1974 in First Appeal No. 111 of 1969 (reported in (1975) 77 Bom LR 314). The respondent had on lease a piece of land admeasuring 17,279 square yards from the Bombay Port Trust for 30 years from February, 1961 at a rent of Rs. 9,482.34 per month for the first 15 years and Rs. 11,852.92 per month for the remaining period and put up apart from other structures and buildings, six oil tanks for storage of petrol and petroleum products. Each tank rests on a foundation of sand having a height of 2 ft. 6 inches. There is a four inches thick asphalt layer to retain the sand. The steel plates were spread on the asphalt layer and the tank was put on the steel plates which acts as bottom of the tanks which rests freely on the asphalt layer. There are no bolts and nuts for holding the tanks on to the foundation. The tanks remain in the position by its own weight. Each tank is about 30 ft. in height and 50 ft. in diameter weighing about 40 tons. The total weight of the tank filled with petroleum products would be about 7,160 tons. Each tank has a staircase along the side. Each of the tanks is connected with the pump house with the pipes for pumping petroleum products into the tank and sending them back to the pump house having a diameter of 8 x 14. The distance between the pump house and tanks varies between 50 fts. to 300 fts.
(2.)For the year 1964-65 the appellantfixedv a sum of Rs. 1,27,380 as the rateablevalue of the installations on the demised propertv consisting of the buildings, struet'ures and tanks. The Investigating Officer, on objections raised by the respondent, reduced the rateable value to Rs. 84,660 i.e. Rs. 13,980 being the rateable value of the buildings and structures, and the balance i.e. Rs. 70,680 being the rateable value of the tanks. The rateable value of the tanks was fixed on the basis of the capacity of each of the tanks. On appeal to the Court of Small Causes at Bombay as against rateable value of the tanks,by judgment dated December 5, 1968, the Additional Chief Judge found that the tanks having been constructed of mild steel plates and structurals fell within the definition of'land'or'building'in S. 3(r) and 3(s) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short'the Act) and are liable to property tax under the Act. Accordingly the rateable value of the tanks fixed by the corporation was upheld. On further appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal holding that the tanks are neither structure, nor a building, nor land under the Act.
(3.)The crucial question, on the facts are found by both the courts narrated earlier is whether the storage tanks . of petroleum roducts are "land" within the meaning of S.p 3(r) or "buildings" as defined u /S. 3(s) of lane Act and are exigible to property tax. S.. 3(r) defind " building thus"
"land," includes land which is being built upon or is btiilt upon or covered with water, benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and rights created by legislative enactment over any street".

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.