Commissioner Of Customs New ... vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5847 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                 W.P.NO.60453/2009 (LB-TAX)

Between:
Commissioner of Customs,
New Custom House, Panambur,
Mangalore.
                                                         ... Petitioner
(By Shri G.S. Hulamani , Advocate)

And:
1.      State of Karnataka,
        Secretary, Revenue Department,
        Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru.
2.      The Director,
        Office of the Director of Municipal
        Administration, Bengaluru.
3.      The Chief Officer,
        Town Municipality, Kumta,
        Uttara Kannada.
                                                      ... Respondents
(By Shri R.M. Javed, Advocate for R3;
 Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for R1;
 R2 - served & unrepresented)

       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-A, dated 13.08.2008,
Annexure-B, dated 08.12.2008 and Annexure-C, seizure explanatory
note and proforma of notice in Annexure-11, dated 02.01.2009 and
consequently to declare Section 94(J) of the Karnataka Municipalities
Act, 1964 as null and void.

      This petition coming on for final hearing, this day, the Court
made the following:
                                 :2:



                               ORDER

1. The Commissioner of Customs has presented this

writ petition and he seeks for quashing of a notice dated

13.08.2008 by which he is called upon to pay a sum of

Rs.21,363/- being the property tax dues in respect of the

custom offices situate at Kumta. The consequential order of

seizure of property of the Commissioner vide Annexure-C is

also challenged.

2. The endorsement of the Director of Municipal

Administration which stated that there was no provision to

exempt the residential premises of Unions and the State

Government permissible under the Municipality Act is also

under challenge.

3. The principal contention advanced by the

Commissioner of Customs is that there is Constitutional

Immunity under Article 285 of the Constitution of India

exempting all the properties of the Union from all the taxes

imposed by the State or any other authority within the State.

4. The Commissioner also relies upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.6532/2002 in the case of Municipal Corporation,

Amritsar Vs. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Officers, Amritsar

Div. & Anr. disposed of on 21.10.2004 in this regard.

5. A reading of the impugned order does not indicate

that the respondents have considered the effect of Article 285

of the Constitution of India and the immunity claimed by the

Commissioner of Customs.

6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order

cannot be sustained and the same are quashed. The third

respondent shall consider the contention advanced by the

Commissioner that there is a constitutional exemption

guaranteed under Article 285 of the Constitution of India to

the properties of the Union and therefore, the third

respondent cannot impose any property tax on it and then

pass appropriate orders.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*