Case: Tata Iron &amp; Steel Co.Ltd Vs. State Of West Bengal

this analysis of the provisions of the Act we now proceed to consider the arguments advanced before us. 8. In the first place, the arguments raised before us on behalf of the appellants do not really fall for consideration inasmuch as from the facts extracted from the judgment of the learned Single Judge it is clear that the appellants own the buildings fully and, therefore, the question of part -ownership or any discrimination arising thereto need not be examined at their instance at all. 9. The High Court has noticed the factual position in relation to the appellants before this Court as follows: "The petitioner in Matter No. 288 of 1980 is the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Corporation owns various premises in Calcutta, about 29 of which are five storeyed or more than five storeyed. Some of the said premises are wholly or in part let out to various tenants and/ or leased out to various lessees who from their respective tenanted or leased out premises, carry on trade or business of a commercial nature of use their respective portions for the purpose of residence. Some of the said premises or in part house the officers of the Corporation.The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and the Indian Tube Co. Ltd are the first two petitioners in Matter No. 1300 of 1980. They are the owners of a 18 storeyed building at 43, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta popularly known as "Tata Centre". The petitioners use a portion of the building for their respective business and commercial activities and have let out other portions to various tenants who also use the same for their business and commercial activities. " 10. Even otherwise, the scheme of taxation to which we have adverted to just now, is upon the entire multi-storeyed building or part thereof. However, in any given case, if a person is in occupation of a portion of a multi-storeyed building as tenant, who can also be deemed to be the owner of such multi-storeyed building, he will be liable to pay tax to the extent of portion which is in his occupation and such levy of tax for portions let out or in the occupations of others will not impinge upon the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The expression owner, if read along with Section 3 and Section 5 of the Act, will cover the multi-storeyed building and though for the purpose of taxation different units of the buildings are taken into consideration, the taxation is on the entire building. Therefore, the argument that the unit of assessment changes from the entire multi-storeyed building to individual units occupied by deemed owner or occupier cannot be accepted. The argument that the taxation being on the covered space of a portion whether he be the owner or the occupier in respect of a portion of a building would not be a relevant factor if multi-storeyed building is brought to tax, but we do not think this position is correct. The levy is upon the multi-storeyed building is clear from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, but if the distribution of the levy is made upon the owners and in some cases upon the occupiers it will not change the purpose of the Act to levy a tax on the multi-storeyed building by reason of the fact that tax is levied on such occupied or covered area in the the multi-storeyed building which is in possession of the owner or the occupier. This kind of classification has been not un- known. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decisions in RE. A. Reference under Government of Ireland Act, 1920, 1936 (2) All ER 111; M/s R.R. Engineering Company vs. Zilla Parishad, Bareilly & Anr., 1980 (3) SCC 330 , and The Hinger-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Orissa & Ors., 1961 (2) SCR 537 , to contend that the method of determining the rate of levy would be a relevant fact in considering the character of levy and that the standard on which tax is levied is a relevant consideration in determining the nature of the tax although it cannot be regarded as conclusive in the matter. These decisions cannot be of any assistance to the learned counsel for the appellants because from the scheme of taxation in the present case it is clear that they levy is upon the multi-storeyed building or part thereof which may be in the occupation on the owner or a particular occupier who is deemed to be the owner thereof for the purpose of the Act. Thereof, the measure of taxation also does not vary in so far as the Act is concerned. We find no substance in this argument. 12. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that if multi-storeyed buildings are classified into five stories and above as against buildings having less than five floors it would offend the doctrine of equality has absolutely no basis. Apart from the fact that somewhere limit has to be drawn between different types of buildings and if Legislature thinks five floors and above should be subject to tax, no fault can be found with it. It cannot be said that those who live in these kinds of buildings which are subject to taxation upto fourth floor are similar to those who live in the buildings having less than five floors because it appears from the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and bye-laws thereto certain special amenities have to be provided in the buildings having five floors or more, as noticed by the High Court, Hence, this contention is rejected.13. We do not find that there is any substance in the contention based on discrimination between two sets of buildings nor are we impressed with the other argument that there is discrimination because of want of appropriate relationship or nexus between the nature of levy and the classification of the building made under the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The expression owner, if read along with Section 3 and Section 5 of the Act, will cover the multi-storeyed building and though for the purpose of taxation different units of the buildings are taken into consideration, the taxation is on the entire building. Therefore, the argument that the unit of assessment changes from the entire multi-storeyed building to individual units occupied by deemed owner or occupier cannot be accepted. The argument that the taxation being on the covered space of a portion whether he be the owner or the occupier in respect of a portion of a building would not be a relevant factor if multi-storeyed building is brought to tax, but we do not think this position is correct. The levy is upon the multi-storeyed building is clear from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, but if the distribution of the levy is made upon the owners and in some cases upon the occupiers it will not change the purpose of the Act to levy a tax on the multi-storeyed building by reason of the fact that tax is levied on such occupied or covered area in the the multi-storeyed building which is in possession of the owner or the occupier. This kind of classification has been not un-from the fact that somewhere limit has to be drawn between different types of buildings and if Legislature thinks five floors and above should be subject to tax, no fault can be found with it. It cannot be said that those who live in these kinds of buildings which are subject to taxation upto fourth floor are similar to those who live in the buildings having less than five floors because it appears from the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and bye-laws thereto certain special amenities have to be provided in the buildings having five floors or more, as noticed by the High Court, Hence, this contention is rejected.13. We do not find that there is any substance in the contention based on discrimination between two sets of buildings nor are we impressed with the other argument that there is discrimination because of want of appropriate relationship or nexus between the nature of levy and the classification of the building made under the Act.