Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and maintained the order dated 30.7.92 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur by which the Additional Divisional Commissioner allowed the revision petition filed by the Rajas- than State Hotel Corporation, Udaipur, but dismissed the revision petition filed by the State. (2). The Rajasthan State Hotel Corporation, Udaipur (hereinafter referred as `the Corporation) is running a hotel, namely, `Anand Bhawan in the city of Udaipur. The building of this hotel Anand Bhawan is on lease with the Corporation while the property is owned by the State Government. The Assistant Commissioner, Land & Building Tax, Udaipur, by his order dated 29.6.77 assessed the Corporation for this property under the Land and Building Tax (for short, `the Act). He assessed the market value of the hotel Anand Bhawan to the tune of Rs. 13,07,600/- and determined a sum of Rs. 6288/- as the amount of land and building tax payable by the Corporation. (3). Dissatisfied with the order dated 29.6.77 passed by the Assessing Authority subjecting the Corporation to levy of tax on the building of Anand Bhawan, the Corporation filed an appeal before the Deputy Director (Appellate Authority), Land and Building Tax, Jodhpur. The appeal filed by the Corporation was allowed in part. The appellate authority held the Corporation liable to pay tax and the order levying the tax was maintained but the amount of the tax was reduced from Rs. 6288/- to Rs. 2971/- per year. (4). The State as well as the Corporation, both, filed revision petitions before the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, which were transferred for disposal to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, by its order dated 30.7.92 dismissed the revision petition filed by the State but, however, allowed the revision petition filed by the Corporation. (5). Aggrieved with the order dated 30.7.92 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, the State filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment/order dated 23.9.94. It is against this order that the State has filed this appeal. (6). (5). Aggrieved with the order dated 30.7.92 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, the State filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment/order dated 23.9.94. It is against this order that the State has filed this appeal. (6). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the hotel Anand Bhawan, Udaipur is not owned or administered by the State but it is run by the Corporation. It is on lease with the Corporation and, therefore, the property is liable to land and building tax and it was rightly subjected to levy of tax by the Assessing Authority. (7). The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, is that all the shares of the Corporation are with the State Government and the hotel is owned by the State and the business of the hotel is being administered by the persons appointed by the State. Since all the shares are with the Government, therefore, the property owned by the Corporation is exempted under Section 6(a) of the Act and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur was, therefore, right in holding that since the hotel is administered and owned by the State as such the property is not subjected to levy of the land and building tax. (8). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (9). The Rajasthan State Hotel Corporation, Udaipur is a `corporation set-up by the State to carry-out the functions in the field of tourism. Majority of the shares in the Corporation are held by the State. The Corporation is a separate juristic per- son and has a separate identity. It may be considered as a `State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, but the property owned and managed by the Corporation cannot be considered as the property owned by the Government. The management and administration of the property of the Corporation vest in the Corporation itself and not in the State. Even as per the admitted position, the pro- perty of hotel Anand Bhawan, Udaipur has been given on lease to the Corporation. (10). In the eye of law the Corporation is its own master. It is not the `State and has got none of the amenities and privileges of the State. Even as per the admitted position, the pro- perty of hotel Anand Bhawan, Udaipur has been given on lease to the Corporation. (10). In the eye of law the Corporation is its own master. It is not the `State and has got none of the amenities and privileges of the State. Though the Corporation is a public authority established for a different purpose, i.e., development of tourism in the State, but it is not a department of the Government nor its powers fall within the province of the Government. (11). In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. The Income Tax Officer, B.1-B Ward, Hyderabad (1), it has been held by the Apex Court that :– ``The corporation though statutory, has a personality of its own and this personality is distinct from that of the State or other share - hol- ders. It cannot be said that a share-holder owns the property of the corporation or carries on the business with which the corporation is concerned. The doctrine that a corporation has a separate legal entity of its own is so firmly rooted in our notions derived from common law that it is hardly necessary to deal with it elaborately; and so, prima facie, the income derived by the appellant from its trading activity cannot be claimed by the State which is one of the share-holders of the corporation. (12). In : Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs. State of Bihar and others (2), it has been held by the Supreme Court as under :– ``The company so incorporated derives its powers and functions from and by virtue of its memorandum of association and its articles of association. Therefore, the mere fact that the entire share capital of the respondent company was contributed by the Central Government and the fact that all its shares are held by the President and certain officers of the Central Government does not make any difference. The company and the share-holders being, as aforesaid, distinct entities, the fact that the President of India and certain officers hold all its shares does not make the company an agent either of the President of the Central Government. The company and the share-holders being, as aforesaid, distinct entities, the fact that the President of India and certain officers hold all its shares does not make the company an agent either of the President of the Central Government. A notice to the President of India and the said officers of the Central Government, who hold between them all the shares of the company, would not be a notice to the company, nor can a suit maintainable by and in the name of the Company be sustained by or in the name of the President and the said officers. (13). In : Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Special Area Development Authority, Kobra and Ors. (3), it has been held that :– ``Even though the entire share capital of the companies has been subscribed by the Government of India, it cannot be predicated that the companies themselves are owned by the Government of India. The companies, which are incorporated under the Companies Act, have a corporate personality of their own, distinct from that of the Government of India. The lands and buildings are vested in and owned by the companies, the Government of India only owns the share capital. (14). In : Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (4), it has been held by the Supreme Court as under :– ``It is, however, common ground before us that though the Bank is a corporation wholly owned and controlled by the Government, it has a distinct personality of its own and its property cannot be said to be the property of the Union. The position, in deed, is beyond the pale of controversy after the decision of this Court in : Bacha F. Guzkdar vs. CIT ( AIR 1955 SC 74 ) etc. etc. . . . . . (15). In the present case, there is no dispute that the Corporation was set-up by the State Government which holds all the shares in the Corporation. The Corpo- ration has been set-up for advancement of tourism in the State. The Corporation, in holding its property and carrying-on its business, is not an agent of the State but it is having an independent entity as a Corporation. The Corporation is incorporated under the Companies Act and its constitution, powers and functions are provided for and regulated by its own Act. The Corporation, in holding its property and carrying-on its business, is not an agent of the State but it is having an independent entity as a Corporation. The Corporation is incorporated under the Companies Act and its constitution, powers and functions are provided for and regulated by its own Act. It has a separate existence and the law recognises it as a juristic person separate and distinct from the State. Since the Corporation has a separate entity than the State and its business is administered and owned by the Corporation itself, therefore, it cannot be said that the business and the property of the hotel are administered or owned by the State. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur was, therefore, not right in holding that the property of the respondent Corporation is administered and owned by the State. (16). The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the property was given on lease by the State Government to the Corporation and, therefore, Section 6(a) of the Act, granting exemption to the property of the State, is not applicable as after giving the property on lease to the Corporation, the Corporation is the owner of the property. (17). There is no dispute so far as the factual aspect, that the property was on lease with the respondent Corporation, is concerned. It has been admitted by the respondent Corporation itself that the property is owned by the State but it has been given on lease to the Corporation. In the additional affidavit of one Shri G.D. Shar- ma, filed on behalf of the Corporation, it has been stated as under :– ``The Corporation has made payment of the lease rent to the State at the tune of Rs. 1,17, 572.76 per annum for the property which was transferred by the State Government to the Corporation at the time of the creation of Hotels Corporation. In fact, the building of Hotel Anand Bhawan, Udaipur is in possession of the Rajasthan State Hotels Corporation on lease by the State Government. The Corporation is making payment of lease rent annually to the State Government for this purpose. The title of the building still vests with State Government. In fact, the building of Hotel Anand Bhawan, Udaipur is in possession of the Rajasthan State Hotels Corporation on lease by the State Government. The Corporation is making payment of lease rent annually to the State Government for this purpose. The title of the building still vests with State Government. It is submitted that it is admitted position that so far as the land is con- cerned, its title rests with the State Government and therefore, the structure standing on the land concerned is also under the ownership of the State Government. The State Government while accepting the lease rent from the Corporation is not entitled to charge land & building tax from the Corporation. Section 3 of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act deals with the levy of land and building tax. It provides the levy of tax on land and building situated in the urban area, from the owner of such land and building at such rate, not exceeding 2% of the market value of the property. Section 6(a) provides that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any land or building or portion thereof, owned or administered by the State Government, the Central Government or a Local Authority. Section 2(1) of the Act defines the term `owner. According to the definition under the Act, `owner in respect of any land or building or portion thereof, includes the person, who for the time being receives or who would be entitled to receive, the rent thereof, if the same were let. The proviso appended to this sub-section states that in the case of land or building owned by the State Government, the lessee or grantee thereof from the State Government shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the owner of the land or building as the case may be. (17). Admittedly, in the present case, as per the case of the Corporation itself, the property was on lease with it. Since the property was on lease with the Corporation, therefore, in view of the definition of the word `owner contained in Section 2(10) of the Act, the Corporation is said to be the owner of the property for the purpose of the Act and is subject to levy of land and building tax. Since the property was on lease with the Corporation, therefore, in view of the definition of the word `owner contained in Section 2(10) of the Act, the Corporation is said to be the owner of the property for the purpose of the Act and is subject to levy of land and building tax. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, affirming the order (Annexure 3) passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside on this ground, also. (18). The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, has not considered the revision petitions on merit and allowed the revision petition filed by the Corporation on the ground that the property is administered and managed by the State; and dismissed the revision petition filed by the State. Since we have held that the Corporation is a separate entity and the business of the hotel Anand Bhawan, Udaipur is owned and administered by the Corporation, which is a separate entity and is not a State, we, therefore, think it proper to remand the case to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur to decide the matter regarding quantum of the land and building tax. (18). In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants (State and Anr.) is allowed. The judgment dated 29.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur are set-aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur to decide both the revision petitions in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.