Bombay High Court
Agriculture Produce Market ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 3 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004) 106 BOMLR 942
Author: R Lodha
Bench: R Lodha, K Rohee
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Risod (for short "A.P.M.C.") is the petitioner before us. By means of this writ petition, the demand notices (D 1 to D 14) are being challenged by the petitioner. The demand notices (D 1 to D 14) were issued by the Municipal Council, Risod (for short "the Council") demanding property tax from A.P.M.C., Risod.
2. The only challenge to the said notices is based on the ground that the Council does not provide any facility to the A.P.M.C. nor services are rendered by the Council and, therefore, the question of levy of any property tax on the A.P.M.C. does not arise. It is the petitioner's case that it itself has provided sanitation, lighting, road, drainage, water connection, severage etc. to its properties and therefore, demand of property tax by the Council is unjustified. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Pradeep Ginning and Deokumar Oil Mills v. The Municipal Council Karanja 1977 Bom. L.R. 228.
3. At the outset, we may say that the Judgment of this Court in Pradeep Ginning and Deokumar Oil Mills (supra) referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no relevance. The said Judgment relates to the levy of licence fee. The difference and distinction between a tax and a fee is by now well settled. The fee can only be levied by an authority for some service rendered by it to the person from whom the levy is exacted. For levy of fee, there has to be quid pro quo and, therefore, before levy of fee, the local authority has to justify some special service rendered to the person from whom the fee is collected but it is not so in so far as levy of tax is concerned. Levy of tax is not dependent on the service being rendered by the authority levying such tax. A tax is an imposition made for public purpose, without reference to any services rendered by the State or any specific benefit to be conferred upon the tax payer. The object of levy of tax is to raise general revenue. In the case of tax there is no quid pro quo between the tax payer and the State. There is no co-relation between the tax collected and the service intended to be rendered. Tax is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not the payment for services rendered. It is a part of the common burden and the quantum of imposition of tax depends on diverse factors. Public interest is always the basis of imposition of tax. In The Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. the Apex Court highlighted the distinction between tax and fee by observing that whereas a tax is imposed for public purposes and is not and need not be supported by any consideration of service rendered in return, a fee is levied essentially for services rendered and as such there is an element of quid pro quo between the person who pays the fee and the public authority which imposes it.
4. It would be, thus, seen that under the mistaken concept that the demand raised by the Council, Risod is fee, the A.P.M.C., Risod has challenged the demand notices before this Court. The fact is that the Council, Risod is demanding the property tax on the completed buildings of the A.P.M.C., Risod under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and not the fee.
5. The whole challenge by the A.P.M.C., Risod to the demand of property taxes is misplaced.
6. Besides that it would be seen that the demands are amenable to the statutory appeals under the Act of 1965.
7. All in all, no case for invocation of writ jurisdiction is made out. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
