Tax on land and building — Towers for wireless communication system cannot be construed as building — Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, (14 of 1977) section 2(1A).

The appellants herein who are the licensees under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for providing telecommunication services to the general public had approached the Court by writ petitions. The petitioners had called in question the demands raised against the petitioners by the respective local bodies. The demands had been raised in respect of the erection of the base trans-receiver station. The contention on behalf of the petitioners therein was that the municipal authorities/local bodies have no authority to make physical demand in respect of the telecommunication towers installed.

The Court observed that the ‘structure’ which is the subject-matter in the instant case is considered, it is a metal pole or tower to which the antenna is attached and has the backup system at its base. No doubt, it would have to be fastened to the roof of the building or embedded to the land with concrete base, nuts, bolts and the height of the pole may vary from case to case. Such structure though may suggest an element of permanency, it does not belong to the genus of the type previously mentioned in the section defining the building. If the phrase used was ‘other structures’, the term would have been wider to include other structures without reference to the first part of the section. But when it states ‘other such structure’, the structure in question will have to be of nature of the items mentioned in the first part of the section. Therefore, the tower/post which is not relatable to the items mentioned in the first part cannot be construed as a building to bring it within the sweep of section 94 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964, section 103(b) (i) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and section 64 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993.

The above provisions indicate that apart from the other specific items for which power to tax has been provided, the power is also to impose tax on land and building alone. In fact, in the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the provision for tax on advertisements is exhaustive and includes ‘post’ and ‘structure’ and the term ‘structure’ has been explained further, but it only relates to advertisement. This in fact indicates that the telecommunication structure has not been indicated separately, nor does it get included in the definition of ‘building’. Therefore, the Court held that the telecommunication tower/post was not liable to tax under the existing power available to impose tax on ‘land’ and ‘buildings’.