Aivaj Dewangan S/o Late Shri Phool Singh Dewangan Aged About 50 Years R/o Trimurti v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Urban Development And Planning
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10693-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.06 10:26:27 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 34 of 2025 Aivaj Dewangan S/o Late Shri Phool Singh Dewangan Aged About 50 Years R/o Trimurti Nagar, Ward No. 31, Chandrashekhar Azad Ward, Nagar Nigam Beergaon, P.S. Urla, Tahsil-Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Urban Development And Planning, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Secretary General Administration Department, Government Of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Corporation Beergaon, Through The Commissioner, Tahsil-Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
4 - M/s. Indo Chains Through Managing Director, A Partnership Firm Registered Under The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 Having Its Factory Unit At Industrial Area, Bhanpuri, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Urla Industries Association Through Managing Director A Registered Association Under The Registrar of Firms And Societies, Erstwhile Madhya Pradesh And Having Its Registered Office At Urla Industries Complex, Urla, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Chhattisgarh Federation Of Industries Through Managing Director A Duly Registered Association Under The Registrar Of Firms And 2 Societies, Erstwhile Madhya Pradesh And Having Its Registered Office At 8-B, Industrial Estate, Bhanpuri, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Adv. General : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 0 5 .0 3 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner who is stated as a Councilor of Municipal Corporation, Birgaon and public spirited citizen has moved this writ petition, projecting the alleged 'double standards' being pursued by the State in the field of taxation, whereby vide impugned decision (Annexure P-1) dated 13.09.2023, the State has exempted all the industries from payment of taxes to the respondent Corporation including the arrears. It is in the said background, that the matter is sought to be interfered by this Court, by raising prayers in the following terms : 3 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by respondent state and further be pleased to direct the respondents to recover the due amount of municipal taxes from all the factories/ industries situated within the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Beergaon, from financial year starting from 01.04.2010 onwards, with adequate interest, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. This is second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner has filed a writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation, being WPPIL No. 94 of 2014, projecting the alleged 'double standards' being pursued by the State in the field of taxation, whereby some undeclared exemption was being extended to the industrial establishments situated in the area of Municipal Corporation, Birgaon and surrounding villages, where as the benefit as aforesaid was not being extended to a common man. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2019 on the assurance given by the State that they have decided to tax the industrial units situated in the area as in other cases. Thereafter, the State Government has taken a policy decision and passed the following order on 13.09.2023 : 4 **NRrhlx< 'kklu uxjh; iz’kklu ,oa fodkl foHkkx ea=ky; egkunh Hkou] uok jk;iqj vVy uxj &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& @@ vkns’k @@ uok jk;iqj vVy uxj] fnukad 13 flrEcj] 2023 dzekad %% ,Q 8&1@2023@18 %% jkT; 'kklu ,rn~}kjk Nrrhlx<+ uxj ikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 163 rFkk NRrhlx<+ uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1961 dh /kkjk 132 esa laifRr dj esa NwV ds fo/kd izko/kku ,oa eaf=&ifj"kn~ ds vkns’k fnukad 02-09-2023 vuqlkj uxjh; {ks= esa m|ksx foHkkx @ lh,lvkbZMhlh }kjk fodflr vkS|ksfxr {ks=ksa esa LFkkfir vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ;ksa dks laj{k.k ,oa izksRlkgu nsus gsrq laifRr dj ns;rk ls iw.kZ NwV iznku dh tkrh gS A uxjh; fudk;ksa dks iwoZ esa izkIr gks jgh laifRr dj dh izfriwfrZ o"kZ 2022&23 dh okf"kZd ekax dks vk/kkj ekudj] 30 izfr’kr jkf’k {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa lacaf/kr fudk; dks paqxh {kfriwfrZ en ls ns; gksxh A iwoZ ds cdk;k olwyh dks vikLr fd;k tkr gS A N-x- ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk funsZ’kkuqlkj** 4. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 has been passed without any rhyme or reason to benefit the rich, influential and well connected industrialists by exempting all the industries from payment of taxes to the respondent Corporation including arrears in absolutely illegal manner in complete violation of scheme and object of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) and Constitution of India. He further argued that the respondent State without considering the views of respondent Municipal Corporation and 5 financial condition of respondent Municipal Corporation granted exemption to the industries falling within Municipal area of respondent Municipal Corporation and simultaneously cancelled all earlier due recovery of taxes from the industries and further the exemption is granted for future also, so that the industries are not required to pay taxes to the respondent Corporation in future also. The above act is done in the name of providing protection and encouragement to the industries without taking any information with regard to financial condition of the industries from year 2009 onwards and without considering the fact that all the industries cannot survive in continuous loss for more than 15 years and all the industries cannot be at loss that too after more than 40 years of establishment of industries. It is also important to mention here that the classification made by the respondent State between the industries at one side and all others including residents and voters on the other side is completely discriminative and in utter violation of the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 1956 read with Chapter IX-A of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Sharma further submitted that under the provisions of the Actof 1956, the respondent State can only grant exemption from payment of tax but no authority is granted to abolish the tax provisions for industries only, whereby their past taxes are cancelled, present and future taxes are exempted and the industries are not required to pay taxes to the respondent Corporation for past, present and future in the name of protection 6 and encouragement which is completely arbitrary as protection and encouragement cannot be granted to the industries for life time including past and future period by abolishing payment of tax to the Corporation without considering the financial conditions of all the industries. He also submitted that the object of the Act of 1956 and Constitution is to strengthen the financial condition of Municipality, which is made weak by impugned order. Similarly under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India, the constitution of Municipality is to be done having regard to the revenue generated for local administration and economic importance but by the impugned order revenue generation tax is virtually abolished by the respondent State as revenue generation through tax is major portion of revenue of respondent Corporation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that it is the policy decision of the State to provide complete exemption from property tax liability to protect and encourage the industrial areas developed not only to the Municipal Corporation, Birgaon, but also to all the industries developed by the Department of industries / CSIDC in all the urban areas. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 7 8. Section 163 of the Act of 1956 talks about the power of the Government in regard to taxes, which reads as under :- 163. Power of the Government in regard to taxes.- (1) The Government may after giving the Corporation an opportunity of expressing its views, by order, exempt from the payment of any such tax in whole or in part any person or class of person or any property or description of property. (2) If any time it appears to the Government, on a representation made or otherwise, that any tax imposed by or under this Act is unfair inn its incidence or that the levy thereof or of any part thereof is injurious to the interests of he general public; it may after giving the Corporation the opportunity of expressing its views require the Corporation to take within a specified period measures to remove the objection; and if within that period the requirement is not complied with to the satisfaction of Government, the Government may by notification suspend the levy of the tax or of such part thereof until the objection has been removed.” 9. Section 132 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) empowers the State Government to grant exemption from taxes. Section 132 of the Act of 1961 reads as under : “Section 132 - Power of State Government to grant exemption from taxes. The State Government may, on its own motion or otherwise, after giving the Council an opportunity of expressing its views in the matter, by order, exempt from payment of any tax in whole or in part any 8 person or class of persons; or any property or description of properties for the purpose of granting protection to any industry or for any other purpose in public interest subject to such conditions as may be specified in such order.” 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it is the policy decision of the State Government under Section 163 of the Act of 1956 read with Section 132 of the Act of 1961 to provide complete exemption from property tax liability to protect and encourage the industrial areas developed by the Department of industries / CSIDC in the urban area. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Bhagwan & Others, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 193 has held that the interference by the Judiciary in such a policy decision having financial implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified. 12. In view of the same, we do not find any good ground for interference. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Security amount deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra