THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996 Present Honble the Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand Honble Mr. Justice B.L. Hensaria Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Sen Honble Mr. Justice K.S. Peripoornan Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal Ashok H. Desai, Attorney General, B. Sen, A.M. Singhvi, A.K. Ganguli, A.S. Nambiar, U.N. Bachawat, P.P. Rao, Sr.
Advs.,
On October 29, 1987, another Division Bench of this Court directed that the matter be listed before a Constitution Bench.
Chalmeswar Additional Advocate General for State of P. , Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Binju Tamta.
Yatish Mohan, Ms. Anu Mohla, R.K. Maheshwari, R.N. Keshwani, Vineet Maheshwari, A. Subba Rao, B.K. Prasad, Arun K. Sharma, Ms. Vandana Sharma, B. Rohatgi, Ms. Aparna Rohatgi, Praveen Jain, Baldev Atreya, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramaniam, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, G. Prakash, S.K. Agnihotri, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Ashok Kr.
On January 14, 1993, a 5 Judge Constitution Bench of this Court began hearing arguments and after companysidering the rival submissions, on October 4, 1994, passed an order referring the matter to a 9 Judge Bench.
Singh, J.R. Das Adv.
In the said order, the Bench observed that it had companysidered the decision in the Sea Customs Case and was of the opinion that the point at issue in these matters was companyered therein.
The decision in the Sea Customs case having been reaffirmed by the decision of this Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. The Income Tax Officer Another, 1969 7 C.R. 17 hereinafter called the APSRTC case , the Bench companysidered itself bound by the decision however, it was of the view that the arguments advanced before it, which were number companysidered by the earlier decisions, were plausible and required companysideration which necessitated the setting up of a 9 Judge Bench to hear the matter.
for M s. Sinha Das Co., Prem Malhotra, K.R. Nambiar, C.S.S. Rao, T.T. Kunhikannan, T.C. Sharma, G.M. Kawoosa Adv.
for Ashok Mathur, M.A. Firoz, Ms. Mona Chakraverty Adv.
for Raj Kumar Methta, Aruneshwar Gupa, S.K. Ningomban, Manoj Swarup, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. S. Hazarika, Ms. N. Singh, Ms. M. Kaur, D.M. Nargolkar, Rajiv Khanna Adv.
for Raju Ramchandran, D.P. Mohanty, Advs.
Under the Constitution of India, as initially enacted, the Sates were divided into Part A States, Part B States, Part C States and the territories in Part D. The First Schedule to the Constitution provided details of the States falling within each of these categories.
The Part C States companyprised i Ajmer ii Bhopal iii Bilaspur iv Cooch Bihar v Coorg vi Delhi vii Himachal Pradesh Manipur and ix Tripura.
with them for the appearing parties.
J U D G M E N T S The following Judgments of the Court were delivered WITH CMP Nos.
92 125/80, 201/80, 1223/80, 1352/80, 2363/80, 2912/81, 47 66/84, 16881, 16882, 16883/96, SLP C NOS.
10327, 30308/88, 33826/84 WITH A. Nos.
While Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Bilaspur and Kutch Bihar became parts of other States.
1941/81, 2365/80, 2366/80, 16884/96, SLP C No.
The Laccadive, Minnoy and Amindivi Islands became a Union Territory.
The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 hereinafter called the Act is applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi and under the provisions of this Act, the NDMC had been levying property tax on the immovable properties of the respondent States situated within Delhi.
9533, 9416, 10628/81, C.A. Nos.
Himachal Pradesh ceased to be a Union Territories by virtue of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970.
These civil appeals and special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated March 14, 1975 in Civil Writ Petition No.
6971/87.
The Case History The development that occasioned the setting up of the Constitution Bench may number be briefly set out.
J U D G M E N T Ahmadi, CJI.
The six Union Territories, therefore, were 1 Delhi 2 Himachal Prades 3 Manipur 4 Tripura 5 Andaman Nicobar Islands 6 The Laccadive, Minnoy Anindivi Islands.
The appellant in all these matters is the New Delhi Municipal Committee hereinafter called the NDMC .
The respondents are the Union of India and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajashthan, Tripura and West Bengal.
In the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Court, while accepting this companytention, relied upon the relevant observations of the 9 Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in In Re The Bill to amend Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, 1964 3 S.C.R. 787 hereinafter called The Sea Customs Case , to quash the assessment and demands of house tax in respect of the properties of the States and restrained the NDMC from levying such a tax in future.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi hereinafter called the MCD appears as an intervenor.
342 of 1969 and other orders which follow this judgment.
Manipur and Tripura became States by virtue of the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971.
Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Goa, Daman Diu ceased to be Union Territories by virtue of the State of Arunachal Act, 1986, the State of Mizoram Act, 1986 and the Goa, Daman Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 respectively.
The respondents challenged the imposition of such a tax on their properties before the Delhi High Court by companytending that it would fall within the exemption provided for in Article 289 1 of the Constitution.
On January 1, 1976, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the NDMC companyld companytinue to make assessments but it was number to issue demand numberices or make any attempts towards realisation of the taxes.
The NDMC filed an application under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution seeking the grant of a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court while granting the Certificate, the High Court observed that the principal question before it had grave companystitutional implications which required an authoritative decision by this Court.
