It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is not a factory within
the meaning of the Factories Act. Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the
said Act, as stated earlier, contemplates an agreement by the Village
Panchayat with a factory. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a
reference to the relevant provisions of the Rules framed under the said
Act. Rule 18 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules,
1960 reiterates the principles laid down by the Section 125(1) of the
said Act that the taxes shall be leviable primarily from the actual
occupier of the building or land upon which it is assessed, if such
occupier is the owner of such building or land. Separate set of Rules
have been framed which governed the agreement under Section 125(1)
of the said Act. The said Rules are Maharashtra Village Panchayats
(Payment of Lump Sum Contribution by Factories In Lieu of Taxes )
Rules 1961 (for short “the said Rules of 1961”). The Rule 3 thereof
provides that it is for an occupier of a factory desiring to arrive at an
agreement to make an application not later than 60 days from the
commencement of the particular financial year. Clause (c) of Rule 2 of
the said Rules of 1961 defines “occupier” of a factory as the person
who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory.
12. Apart from the fact that the individual owner or the
occupier of each factory is primarily liable to pay property taxes, only
the occupier of the factory can make an application for execution of the
agreement in accordance with Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said
Act. Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1961 provides that only an occupier of a
factory can apply for execution of an agreement under Subsection
(1)
of Section 125 of the said Act. The obvious reason is that only a person
who is primarily liable to pay taxes can enter into such an agreement
inasmuch as the execution of the agreement attaches several liabilities
and several consequences. Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said
Act provides that the sanction of the State Government is required for
such Agreement.
13. The admitted position which emerges is that the Petitioner
purported to enter into an agreement under Subsection
(1) of Section
125 of the said Act in relation to 325 factories of which the Petitioner is
neither an owner nor an occupier. Apart from the fact that the Petitioner
is not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, the application
made by the Petitioner for execution of the agreement under Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said Act was itself not competent. The
Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order has rightly stated that
the Petitioner is not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act.
It is not possible to find fault with the reasons assigned by the
Divisional Commissioner. In the affidavit filed by Shri Bharat Balbhim
Shendage, the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment), Pune Division,
Pune, it is pointed out that the Petitioner has been registered as a Cooperative
Industrial Society and, therefore, the Petitioner has no right to
make an application under Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said
Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6477 OF 2013
Parvati Cooperative
Industrial Estate Ltd. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
CORAM
: A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ
DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY 2014
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR890
Print Page
the meaning of the Factories Act. Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the
said Act, as stated earlier, contemplates an agreement by the Village
Panchayat with a factory. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a
reference to the relevant provisions of the Rules framed under the said
Act. Rule 18 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules,
1960 reiterates the principles laid down by the Section 125(1) of the
said Act that the taxes shall be leviable primarily from the actual
occupier of the building or land upon which it is assessed, if such
occupier is the owner of such building or land. Separate set of Rules
have been framed which governed the agreement under Section 125(1)
of the said Act. The said Rules are Maharashtra Village Panchayats
(Payment of Lump Sum Contribution by Factories In Lieu of Taxes )
Rules 1961 (for short “the said Rules of 1961”). The Rule 3 thereof
provides that it is for an occupier of a factory desiring to arrive at an
agreement to make an application not later than 60 days from the
commencement of the particular financial year. Clause (c) of Rule 2 of
the said Rules of 1961 defines “occupier” of a factory as the person
who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory.
12. Apart from the fact that the individual owner or the
occupier of each factory is primarily liable to pay property taxes, only
the occupier of the factory can make an application for execution of the
agreement in accordance with Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said
Act. Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1961 provides that only an occupier of a
factory can apply for execution of an agreement under Subsection
(1)
of Section 125 of the said Act. The obvious reason is that only a person
who is primarily liable to pay taxes can enter into such an agreement
inasmuch as the execution of the agreement attaches several liabilities
and several consequences. Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said
Act provides that the sanction of the State Government is required for
such Agreement.
13. The admitted position which emerges is that the Petitioner
purported to enter into an agreement under Subsection
(1) of Section
125 of the said Act in relation to 325 factories of which the Petitioner is
neither an owner nor an occupier. Apart from the fact that the Petitioner
is not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, the application
made by the Petitioner for execution of the agreement under Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said Act was itself not competent. The
Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order has rightly stated that
the Petitioner is not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act.
It is not possible to find fault with the reasons assigned by the
Divisional Commissioner. In the affidavit filed by Shri Bharat Balbhim
Shendage, the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment), Pune Division,
Pune, it is pointed out that the Petitioner has been registered as a Cooperative
Industrial Society and, therefore, the Petitioner has no right to
make an application under Subsection
(1) of Section 125 of the said
Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6477 OF 2013
Parvati Cooperative
Industrial Estate Ltd. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
CORAM
: A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ
DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY 2014
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR890
