- (1.)THE petitioner Municipal Corporation, Ujjain (for short "the Corporation"), has preferred this revision under section 392 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (Act No. XXIII of 1956) (for short "the Corporation Act"), against the order dated 22-9-1984, passed in Miscelleneous Civil Appeal No. 10/84, whereby the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain had held that the assessing authority of the Corporation was not competent to proceed with the assessment proceedings for imposing property tax in view of the notification issued by the Central Government under sub-clause (b) of section 18-FB (1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") to assess and recover the tax during the duration of such notified order or till the duration is extended from time to time by further notified orders issued under section 18-FB (2) of the Act.
(2.)THE brief facts leading to this revision are thus: A textile Industry known as Indore Textile Mill earlier was being run in the name and style of Phonex Mills, Unit No. 2, as the same was purchased by the Phonex Mills Limited sometime in September, 1973. Thereafter, this Mill was purchased by the Indore Textile Mills on 10-2-1977 from the Phonex Mills. As the management of the industrial undertaking was not running efficiently, there was substantial fall in the volume of production and it also remained closed for a period of three months and such closure was prejudicial to the concerned industry, i. e. the cotton textile industry and the condition of the plant and machinery of the undertaking was such that it was possible to restart the undertaking and such restarting was necessary in the interests of the general public. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 18-AA (1) of the Act, the Central Government authorised the Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited to take over the management of the whole industrial undertaking subject to certain conditions, vide notification No. Section 0617 E/18aa/idra/77 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part 611, section 3 (11) dated 12-8-1977. After this notification another notification No. Section 0118 FB/idra/78 dated 17-2-1978 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II, section 3, sub-section (ii) dated 17-2-1988 was issued, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of section 18-FB (1) of the Act, whereby the Central Government declared that the operation of all contracts, assurances of property, agreements, settlements, awards, standing orders, or other instruments in force immediately before the date of issue of this order (other than those relating to secured liabilities to banks and financial institutions to which the industrial undertaking is a party) shall remain suspended for a period of one year from such date and that all the rights, privileges, obligations and liability accruing before the said date, shall remain suspended for the said period. This period of suspension was extended from time to time till 11th August, 1984 by various notifications. During this period of suspension, the assessing authority of the Corporation, which was invested with the powers of the Commissioner, assessed the property tax of Rs. 7,807. 82 for the year 1977-78 with effect from 1-4-1977. Against this order of assessment the Industrial Undertaking preferred an appeal under section 149 of the Corporation Act on various grounds amongst which an objection was taken that in view of the notification issued under section 18-FB (1) (b) of the Act, the assessing authorities had no jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment proceedings. The Appellate Court accepted the contention that in respect of the notification issued under section 18-FB (1) (b), the assessing authority was not competent to assess and recover the tax during the enforcement of the orders issued from time to time, as the liability remained suspended, even in respect of payment of the property tax under the Corporation Act. It is this order, which has been challenged in this revision.
(3.)THE contention of Shri C. M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation is that in clause (b) of section 18-FB (1) of the Act, the word 'instruments' does not include legislative enactments like the Corporation Act. As such, the operation of the Corporation Act or the rights and liabilities arising thereunder regarding assessment and imposition of property tax, cannot be deemed to be suspended, and the Corporation was quite competent to assess, impose and realise the property tax in accordance with the provisions as contained in Part-IV, Chapter-XI of the Corporation Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Vishnu Pratap Sugar Factory v. Chief Inspector, AIR 1968 SC 102.