[Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Narela v. CIT & Anr., (2008) 305 ITR 1 (SC)]
The appellant-Committee was established under
the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998 (the 1998
Act). The provisions of the said 1998 Act enjoined upon the appellant to
provide facilities for marketing of agricultural produce in Narela, Delhi.
This is apart from performing other functions and duties such as
superintendence, direction and control of markets for regulating the
marketing of agricultural produce.
For the A.Y. 2003-04, the appellant-Committee
claimed exemption from payment of tax on the income earned by it, on the
ground that it was a ‘local authority’ within the meaning of S. 10(20) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act). It relied upon the definition of
‘local authority’ in S. 2(1)(l) of the said 1998 Act. The Assessing Officer
rejected the appellant’s claim for exemption relying upon Circular No.
8/2002, dated August 27, 2002 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
The view taken was that the amended provisions of S. 10(20) of the 1961 Act
were not attracted to ‘Agricultural Produce Marketing Societies’ or
‘Agricultural Market Boards’ even when they may be local authorities under
the Central or State legislation.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who upheld
the view taken by the Assessing Officer and declined the exemption claimed
by the appellant.
A further appeal by the appellant, before the
Tribunal, also failed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the
appellant moved the High Court by way of an appeal u/s.260A of the 1961 Act.
The Delhi High Court following its earlier judgment in the case of
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Azadpur v. CIT, (ITA No.
749/2006), dismissed the appellant’s appeal.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court noted that
prior to the Finance Act, 2002, the said 1961 Act did not contain the
definition of the words ‘local authority’. Those words came to be defined
for the first time by the Finance Act, 2002, vide the Explanation/
definition clause.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court
observed that u/s.3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, ‘local authority’
was defined to mean “a municipal committee, district board, body of port
commissioners or other authority legally entitled to the control or
management of a municipal or local fund. The words ‘other authority’ in S.
3(31) of the 1897 Act have been omitted by Parliament in the
Explanation/definition clause inserted in S. 10(20) of the 1961 Act, vide
the Finance Act, 2002. Therefore, it was not correct to say that the entire
definition of the words ‘local authority’ was bodily lifted from S. 3(31) of
the 1897 Act and incorporated by Parliament, in the Explanation to S. 10(20)
of the 1961 Act. This deliberate omission was important. The Supreme Court
noted that various High Courts had taken the view prior to the Finance Act,
2002, that AMC(s) is a ‘local authority’. That was because there was no
definition of the words ‘local authority’ in the 1961 Act. Those judgments
proceeded primarily on the functional tests as laid down in the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Jain [(1981) 2 SCC 308].
In the case of R. C. Jain, the test of ‘like
nature’ was adopted as the words ‘other authority’ came after the words
‘Municipal Committee, District Board, Body of Port Commissioners’.
Therefore, the words ‘other authority’ in S. 3(31) took colour from the
earlier words, namely, ‘Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port
Commissioners’. This is how the functional test was evolved in the case of
R. C. Jain. The Supreme Court held that
Parliament in its legislative wisdom had omitted the words ‘other authority’
from the said Explanation to S. 10(20) of the 1961 Act. The said Explanation
to S. 10(20) provides a definition to the words ‘local authority’. It is an
exhaustive definition. It is not an inclusive definition. The words ‘other
authority’ do not find place in the said Explanation. Even according to the
appellant(s), AMC(s) was neither a Municipal Committee nor a District Board
nor a Municipal Committee nor a Panchayat. Therefore, according to the
Supreme Court, the functional test and the test of incorporation as laid
down in the case of R. C. Jain, was no more applicable to the Explanation to
S. 10(20) of the 1961 Act.
However, the Supreme Court felt that the
question still remained as to why Parliament had used the words ‘Municipal
Committee’ and ‘District Board’ in item (iii) of the said Explanation.
According to the Supreme Court, Parliament defined ‘local authority’ to mean
— a panchayat as referred to in clause (d) of Article 243 of the
Constitution of India, Municipality as referred to in clause (e) of Article
243P of the Constitution of India. However, there was no reference to
Article 243 after the words ‘Municipal Committee’ and ‘District Board’. It
appeared that the Municipal Committee and District Board in the said
Explanation were used out of abundant caution. In 1897 when the General
Clauses Act was enacted there existed in India, Municipal Committees and
District Boards and it was quite possible that in some remote place a
District Board still existed. The Supreme Court in conclusion observed that
having taken the view that AMC(s) is neither a Municipal Committee nor a
District Board under the Explanation to S. 10(20) of the Act, it refrained
from going into the question : whether the AMC(s) is legally entitled to the
control of the local fund, namely, Market Fund, under said 1998 Act, because
vide the Finance Act, 2008, income of AMC(s) is exempted under sub-section
(26AAB) of S. 10 with effect from April 1, 2009.
