1. Introduction :
As tax-practitioners, readers are familiar with the queer and incomprehensible manner in which the tax laws are administered. In the present article, I have for reference, an interesting news item that appeared in the press a few weeks ago. It is in the context of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
2. Tea/coffee vending machine in office — Tea shop ?
It happened like this. In a well-known elite office complex, there are several multi-storeyed buildings in which the offices of large reputed corporates are located. In one of the offices, there was a mishap due to some electrical problem while operating a tea-vending machine. Immediately, there was a survey by the vigilance squad of the municipality and they issued show-cause notices to all the corporate offices in the complex requiring them to explain as to why they did not obtain licence for carrying on Trade as ‘Tea & Coffee Shop’ under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
As a sequel to the said notices, there was also an enthusiasm to issue prosecution notices. A few managing directors could not remain present before the Magistrate. Immediately, there were warrants against them.
All this was indeed a big farce and it caused lot of panic and commotion among the managements of all these offices.
About the nuisance value of the concerned officers, the less said the better.
3. Remedy :
Two such affected companies moved the Bombay High Court in its Writ jurisdiction. Normally, the High Courts are not inclined to exercise their extra-ordinary jurisdiction in matters pending before lower judicial authorities. However, in the instant case, upon pointing out the patent illegality and the absurdity, the High Court was convinced about the need for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction.
In the course of arguments, the following facts were brought to their notice :
(a) Such offices employed about 100 employees on an average.
(b) There were controls on outsiders entering these offices.
(c) Visitors are provided entry-passes and/or their names are entered in the register. Thus, no unauthorised person can enter the office.
(d) It is very common and customary to provide tea-coffee to the members of the staff and such visitors. The question of selling such things to any outsiders or to passerby does not arise.
It was argued that by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that these corporate offices were engaged in the ‘business of serving tea or coffee’.
The High Court was then convinced about the merits. It also noted the fact that the municipal authorities could not prove that the tea was ‘sold for some consideration’. Therefore, it was held that this was not a business activity at all.
The High Court expressed displeasure that summons were issued in such straight and trivial matters. The High Court is on record to say that the Magistrates should not act as mere ‘rubber stamps’ to issue summons by accepting everything that the prosecution alleges; but that they (magistrates) should satisfy themselves about the merits. The High Court then quashed the prosecution.
Incidentally, it was revealed that many other affected companies bowed to the pressures of the administrative authorities, just to avoid litigation and botheration !
4. Conclusion :
Administration and bureaucracy are capable of making a mockery of any law or any scheme of the Government. It requires courage to stand up against such attitude. Otherwise, the scenario will be indeed very gloomy. It is all the more required in our field of revenue administration. Are we too submissive ?
(Refer Criminal Writ Petition No. 238/2009)
