ORDER K. K. Sasidharan, J. - This tax case involves the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the Notification No. II(1)/CTRE/206/77, dated September 7, 1977 issued under section 17 of the TNGST Act, 1959 exempting tax payable under the said Act on the sales by canteens run by a Managing Committee or Co-operative Society of State or Central Government servants on a no-profit no-loss basis for the benefit of the said State or Central Government employees is not applicable to Corporation staff in spite of G.O. Ms. No. 600 declaring them as Government servants ?" The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the membership of the society is confined to the servants of the Madras Corporation. The assessee is running a cooperative stores as well as a canteen. During the assessment year 1994-95 the assessee failed to produce the accounts for verification and as such a notice of best judgment assessment was served on the assessee. In compliance with the said notice, the assessee submitted their objection to the proposal and produced the accounts. The taxable turnover reported was tallied with the account books. The assessee claimed exemption on the sale of food and drinks on the ground that its members are Government servants and as per the relevant Government order, the turnover is exempted from payment of sales tax. However the claim of exemption was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the Government orders exempting the sale of articles to Government servants are not applicable to the petitioner as the staff of the Madras Corporation are not "Government servants". The assessment order dated August 22, 1996 was taken up by the assessee before the appellate authority. The petitioner contended before the authority that they were not liable to pay sales tax on sale of food and drinks in view of the Government notification exempting sale of food and drinks in canteen run by the Government servants. However the said argument was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that there was no specific order of exemption issued by the Government exempting from tax liability in respect of the business carried on by the assessee. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. However the said argument was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that there was no specific order of exemption issued by the Government exempting from tax liability in respect of the business carried on by the assessee. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The matter was taken up before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the assessee contended that they are entitled for exemption of canteen sales. The Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1368/CT & RE dated September 7, 1977 was examined by the Tribunal and the Tribunal was of the view that the exemption was only in respect of tax payable on the sales by canteen run by a managing committee or co-operative society of State or Central Government servants on a no-profit no-loss basis for the benefit of the said State or Central Government employees. Since the petitioner was not a co-operative society of Government servants and as the sales were not effected to the staff members of the State or Central Government, the Tribunal rejected the contention that the staff of the Madras Corporation has to be equated to the State or Central Government servants so as to enable them for exemption granted by the relevant Government Order. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present tax case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner of Corporation is a Government servant and the term "Government servants" would include any person appointed to any civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Tamil Nadu and as such the staff of the Madras Corporation would come under the definition "Government servants". The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Government order dated September 14, 1989 in support of his contention that the servants of Corporation are all Government servants. According to the learned counsel, the Government have got persuasive control over the Corporation and as such the staff of the Madras Corporation would come under the definition of "Government servants" and in such circumstances the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption. According to the learned counsel, the Government have got persuasive control over the Corporation and as such the staff of the Madras Corporation would come under the definition of "Government servants" and in such circumstances the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the servants of the Madras Corporation were not governed by the service rules framed by the Government and they are governed by separate service regulations and though Government have got certain control over the affairs of the Corporation it would not make the Corporation part of the Government so as to enable the Corporation staff to get the benefit of all the exemptions given to the Government servants. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Income-tax Officer [1964] 52 ITR 524 in support of his contention that a Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act has a separate personality distinct from the State though the Corporation is a fully owned State Corporation. According to the learned Special Government Pleader the same analogy is applicable to the present case. The only dispute in the present tax case relates to the claim of exemption made by the petitioner on the ground that the members of the Madras Corporation are all Government servants. It is trite that Municipal Corporation is also a "State" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India. Even though Government have got pervasive control over the Corporation it cannot be said that the Corporation is a State for all purposes. The Madras Corporation constituted as per the City Municipal Corporation Act is a body corporate having common seal and perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its name. The Corporation is a local authority and the Corporation have got a specified function both under the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 as well as under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India. The Corporation is a local self Government and it has got its own budget. The administration of the Corporation is vested in the council. The councillors are elected by the electorates of the respective wards and the Mayor is elected directly by the electorates. The Corporation is a local self Government and it has got its own budget. The administration of the Corporation is vested in the council. The councillors are elected by the electorates of the respective wards and the Mayor is elected directly by the electorates. The Commissioner is only an executive head of the Corporation and though the Commissioner is appointed by the Government, it cannot be said that the servants of the Corporation are also Government servants. While functioning as the Commissioner of the Corporation, the concerned officer of the State civil service is entitled to the very same remuneration which he was getting from the Government. On the basis of the such provisions in the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, it cannot be said that the servants of the Corporation are all Government servants. The honourable Supreme Court in Srikant v. Vasantrao [2006] 1 SCALE 344, while considering the question of disqualification for being a member of the Legislative Council of a State on account of his subsisting contract with the Government and other authorities observed that a body would answer the definition of "State" under article 12, if it is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under all pervasive control of the "Government". But on the other hand where the control by the Government is merely regulatory, whether under any statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body "State". With respect to the status of local and statutory authority, the honourable Supreme Court observed thus : "... Thus the very decisions relied on by the High Court make it clear that 'instrumentalities of State' are different from 'State Government', though both may answer the definition of 'State' under article 12 for the limited purpose of Part - III of the Constitution. Further, the very inclusive definition of 'State' under article 12 by referring to Government of India, the Government of each of the States and the local and other authorities, makes it clear that a 'State Government' and a local or other authorities, are different and that they fall under a common definition only for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution. This court has consistently refused to apply the enlarged definition of 'State' given in Part III (and Part IV) of the Constitution, for interpreting the words 'State' or 'State Government' occurring in other parts of the Constitution. This court has consistently refused to apply the enlarged definition of 'State' given in Part III (and Part IV) of the Constitution, for interpreting the words 'State' or 'State Government' occurring in other parts of the Constitution. While the term "State" may include a State Government as also statutory or other authorities for the purposes of Part III (or Part IV) of the Constitution, the term 'State Government' in its ordinary sense does not encompass in its fold either a local and statutory authority. ..." There are certain provisions in the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 which include the servants of the Municipal Corporation also under the definition of "Government servants". Such provisions are made only for a particular purpose and beyond the same, it cannot be said that they have to be treated as Government servants for all purposes. Therefore certain circulars issued by the Government treating the servants of the Corporation also as "Government servants" for particular purposes, cannot be taken as the basis to contend that the Corporation servants are also "Government servants". The issue as to whether the servants of the municipality also would come under the definition "Government servant" was considered by a Division Bench of this court in K. Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 95 STC 350 and the Division Bench indicated that though the municipality is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Councils Act it is a separate corporate body having its own seal and personality, independent of the State Government and the fact that the State Government exercises certain power over the municipality does not by itself make the municipality a part of the Government or a Department of the Government. The Division Bench further observed that municipal council is constituted under the provisions of the District Municipalities Act and it is an elected body, elected for a statutory period and therefore it is not possible to hold that it is part of the Government or a Department of the Government so as to treat the servants of the municipality as "Government servants". Therefore we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in negativing the plea raised by the petitioner that the staff of the Madras Corporation are also "Government servants" and as such they are entitled to the exemption granted by the Government to the servants of the Union as well as State. Therefore we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in negativing the plea raised by the petitioner that the staff of the Madras Corporation are also "Government servants" and as such they are entitled to the exemption granted by the Government to the servants of the Union as well as State. Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered against the petitioner. In the result the tax case is dismissed. No costs.