JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. These group of First Appeals are preferred by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) against the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Small Causes Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in respective Municipal Valuation Appeals preferred by the respondent – Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.O.C.’ for the sake of brevity). 2. The Valuation Appeals were preferred by I.O.C. in connection with the municipal tax bills raised by the Corporation in connection with the premises of the I.O.C. situated at Chandkheda, Ahmedabad for separate years. The separate appeals thus preferred by the I.O.C. were disposed of by separate orders under the Appeals, however, on the same day, by the same Court and on identical issues. These appeals are therefore taken up for joint hearing with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties. First Appeal No. Municipal Valuation Appeal No. Assessment Year 1457 of 2016 10 of 2010 2009-2010 1458 of 2016 10 of 2009 2008-2009 1459 of 2016 14 of 2011 2011-2012 1460 of 2016 64 of 2010 2010-2011 1461 of 2016 87 of 2008 2007-2008 3. The facts in nutshell necessary for the disposal of the Appeals are as under: 3.1. That IOC was in possession of the carpet area of 1,38,278-97 sq.mtrs. which was originally situated in Chenpur Gram Panchayat and in the year 2006 merged in Municipal Corporation limit and now following New West Zone Municipal Ward Chenpur bearing new Tenament No. 0668-23-0001-0083-V. 3.2. For the years mentioned hereinabove, the Corporation issued tax bills for the respective amounts, which was objected by the I.O.C. with a request to rectify the factor applied for assessing the property tax and re-verification of measurement of its premises popularly known as ‘Sabarmati Terminal’. 3.3. It was the case of I.O.C. that the Corporation has wrongly considered the Factor-(F.3)(1) for which the rate was at Rs.7/- instead factor that was required to be applied being Factor-(F.3)(3) which was at the rate of Rs.2/-. 3.4. However, the Corporation maintained the tax bill issued under Factor-(F.3)(1). 3.5. Against such bills, therefore, the I.O.C. preferred Municipal Valuation Appeals raising several contentions which included the justification on the grounds as to why the wrong factor appears to have been applied for assessment and levy of municipal tax. 3.4. However, the Corporation maintained the tax bill issued under Factor-(F.3)(1). 3.5. Against such bills, therefore, the I.O.C. preferred Municipal Valuation Appeals raising several contentions which included the justification on the grounds as to why the wrong factor appears to have been applied for assessment and levy of municipal tax. In the appeal, reference in detail was made to the nature of activity carried out on the premises, so as to bring such premises under the definition of ‘Industrial Unit’ and not a godown or an administrative office as is concluded by the Corporation. The small Cause Court No. 4, Ahmedabad by its judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 decided the Appeals in favour of the I.O.C. quashing the impugned bills in the respective appeals and ordered the Corporation to consider the premises of the I.O.C. as a factory and applied factor (F-3)(3) and applied the taxes at Rs.2/- and bill was ordered to be re-issued accordingly. 3.6. The Corporation has challenged these decisions by way of First Appeals before this Court. 4. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-I.O.C. 5. Ms. Javeri has contended that Small Cause Court has committed an error in changing the factor applied in the tax bills by the Corporation. The Corporation had correctly applied the factor considering the nature of usage of the premises. In support of her above submissions, she has drawn attention of this Court to the documents, which were part of the proceeding before the Small Cause Court in the Valuation Appeals and specially while drawing the attention to Form No. 4, which was a statutory registration necessary for undertaking an industrial activity under the Factories Act. This Form No. 4 which reflects the details of the I.O.C. indicating that the details mentioned in such Form, mentions the permissions given to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), and therefore, the statutory document mentions permission given to Marketing Division, and therefore, the premises are being used for administrative functioning of I.O.C.L., which being commercial in nature, will be covered under the definition of commercial property for which the multiplier (factor) was correctly applied. 5.1. 5.1. She also contended that, the learned Small Cause Court ought not to have entertained the appeal, as such appeal ought to have preceded with a complaint or objection to the Municipal Commissioner as contemplated under Section 406(2)(c) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. In support of her argument, she has relied upon a judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad V/s. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1498 and drawing our attention to Paras 83 and 84 of the judgment, she contended that in the instant case, as no objection or complaint with regard to tax bill issued, was made to the Municipal Commissioner, the Small Cause Court ought not to entertain the statutory appeal. 5.2. She further submits by referring to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Taxation Rules (Amendment) 2001, more particularly, Clause-8(B) of the Taxation Rules (Amendment), 2001 made under the provisions of Section 454 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act by the Urban Development & Urban Housing Department Resolution No. AMN/802001/3614/P and by referring to sub-clause (4) which pertains to Use-Factor submits that, the contentions of the I.O.C. to accept multiplier of 2.0 to its premises for the purpose of assessment is unfounded as (a)(iii) of sub-clause (4) of Clause – 8(B) which specifies the nature of activity in the premises, but which does not include the activity which is carried out by the I.O.C. on the subject premises. She thereafter contended that the nature of the activity carried out by I.O.C. on its premises is covered, as submitted earlier under (i) of (a) of sub-clause (4) of Clause 8 (B). 6. As against this, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Bhatt submits that, the I.O.C. is undertaking a process at the premises in connection with the petroleum received from the refinery through pipelines and pump into the oil tanks and stored therein. He submitted that, same activity with regard to blending of the petroleum product also takes place, which according to the definition under the Excise Act is covered as ‘manufacturing activity’ and for which the excise duty is also paid. Therefore, considering the nature of activity undertaken by the I.O.C. on the premises in question, the premises is rightly classified as an ‘industrial unit’, and therefore, the factor applicable to ‘industrial unit’ as factor-3 (f-3)(3). 6.1. Therefore, considering the nature of activity undertaken by the I.O.C. on the premises in question, the premises is rightly classified as an ‘industrial unit’, and therefore, the factor applicable to ‘industrial unit’ as factor-3 (f-3)(3). 6.1. In response to the contentions regarding Form No. 4 of the Factories Act, he submits that the details reflected in such Form is not determined of the actual nature of activity. Merely mention of marketing division in Form No. 4 would only indicate the person/ institution in whose favour such Form – 4 is running, nowhere in the Form, the nature of activity is reflected and therefore, the argument of the Corporation on this count is not required to be accepted. 6.2. In connection with the maintainability of Municipal Valuation Appeals before the Small Cause Court is concerned, he submits that, the objections at Exh.4 against applying of the factor in the tax bills were submitted by IOC and such objections were given in writing with necessary details and which are also part of the proceedings before the Small Cause Court, and therefore, technical objections raised by the Corporation is unfounded. 6.3. Taking us through the record and proceedings of the Small Cause Court, he also pointed out the photographs of the machinery which was installed on the premises for carrying out the process. 6.4. He also refers to a judgment of this Court reported in case of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (U.G.V.C.L.) V/s. Municipal Commissioner of City of Ahmedabad reported in AIR 2013 Gujarat 297, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that, there is no bar operating for maintainability of appeals against the tax bills issued by the Municipal Corporation. 6.5. He also took this Court through the necessary evidence led before the Small Cause Court at Exh.31, wherein the entire manufacturing process has come on record by way of oral evidence of witness of IOC. The manufacturing process which has come on record in para-4 is as under:- “4. I say that Terminal at Sabarmati is a factory within the meaning of the provisions of the Factories Act and license to that effect also been issued. As averred in Para3 of Appeal, what are the activities are carried out at the Terminal is in detail described. I say that Terminal at Sabarmati is a factory within the meaning of the provisions of the Factories Act and license to that effect also been issued. As averred in Para3 of Appeal, what are the activities are carried out at the Terminal is in detail described. I further more submit that at the Sabarmati Terminal Superior Kerosene Oil (S.K.O.) is blue dyed for ensuring optimum utilization and hegrigation of colour as compared to HSD and MS. I, further more submit that Ethanol blending is also carried out which is mandate from the Government of India. I say that for blending Ethanol Motor Spirit license is required to be obtained under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act. The appellant obtained the said license from the respective authority and necessary machineries also installed at the Sabarmati Terminal for carrying out the manufacturing activities as described in the Appeal. I further more say that for Ethanol blending take place at Sabarmati Terminal various safeguard and parameters are required to be kept in mind as per the Industrial Manual. I say that as per Clause – 2 (K) of the Factories Act, manufacturing process includes any process of pumping oil. I say that the appellant seek the factory license and copy of factory license submitted to respondent office and respondent has not considered the said documents.” 6.6. The learned Senior Advocate refers to and rely upon the decision reported in (Qazi Noorul H.H.H. Petrol Pump v. E.S.I. Corporation) (2009) 15 SCC 30 to contend that, even an activity of pumping of oil in a petrol pump is considered as a manufacturing process under the Factories Act, and therefore, the Small Cause Court has correctly considered the activity running in the premises of the I.O.C. to be a manufacturing activity, to which, Factor (F-3)(3)would be applicable. 7. Heard the learned Advocates, considered the rival submissions and having gone through the record and proceedings of the Valuation Appeals of the Small Cause Court. 8. In so far as objection about the maintainability of the Valuation Appeals at the first instance before the Small Cause Court raised by the Corporation and for which reliance is placed on the judgment of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. 8. In so far as objection about the maintainability of the Valuation Appeals at the first instance before the Small Cause Court raised by the Corporation and for which reliance is placed on the judgment of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) is concerned, the relevant paragraphs-83 and 84 of the said judgment does not lay down the proposition that unless the tax bill is objected to or for which a complaint is filed, the tax appeal under Section 406 was not maintainable. This Court in the aforesaid judgment was considered the gross rateable value by attaching the same to annual letting value of the tenanted premises. The Court was also examining the powers of Corporation for the purpose of valuation of properties for taxes, and issue notice for the same and the person who can primarily challenge rateable value under the Taxation Rules. 9. Section 406 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 reads as under:- “406. Appeals when and to whom to lie- (1) Subject to the, provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge. 9. Section 406 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 reads as under:- “406. Appeals when and to whom to lie- (1) Subject to the, provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge. (2) No such appeal [shall be entertained] unless- (a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint ; (b) in the case of an appeal against a rateable value a complaint has previously been made to the Commissioner as provided under this Act and such complaint has been disposed of ; (c) in the case of an appeal against any tax in respect of which provision exists under this Act for a complaint to be made to the Commissioner against the demand, such complaint has previously been made and disposed of ; (d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment made in the assessment book for property taxes during the official year, a complaint has been made by the person aggrieved within fifteen days after he first received notice of such amendment and his complaint has been disposed of ; (e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against a [rateable value, the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, up to the date of filing the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner]” In any case, in the facts of this case, it has come on record of the Small Cause Court that, objections in writing was raised by the I.O.C. prior to preferring statutory appeals. In any case, the judgment of this case in the case of U.G.V.C.L. (Supra) wherein in para-5, this Court observed as under:- “5. The aforesaid makes it clear that there is no bar operating for maintainability of the appeals against the tax bills issued by the Corporation. In our view, the law is clear on the said aspect and therefore, it can be said that ex-facie error has been committed by the learned Judge in relying upon the decision in the case of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. In our view, the law is clear on the said aspect and therefore, it can be said that ex-facie error has been committed by the learned Judge in relying upon the decision in the case of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. (supra) without considering the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Vidhya Sabha (supra).” Therefore, this court is of the view that, Valuation Appeals were rightly entertained by the Small Cause Court. 10. In so far as nature of activity is concerned, the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 defines ‘Factory’ under Section 2 (20) and ‘industrial premises’ under 2 (28 A), which reads as under:- 2(20) “factory” means a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 (LXIII of 1948) 28 A. “industrial premises” means premises including the precincts thereof in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on.” 11. It may also be useful to refer to certain definitions from the Factories Act, 1948 which are as under:- "2(k) "manufacturing process" means process for- (i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or (ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance, or- (iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power, or (iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or block binding or; (v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; or (vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage;" “2 (m) "Factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof- (i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or (ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on- but does not include a mine subject to the operation of [the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) or [a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the Union, railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place].” 12. Considering the aforesaid facts, more particularly, the nature of activity undertaken at the premises which has come on record by way of evidence, is sufficient for this Court to hold that the premises is covered under an ‘industrial unit’. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, more particularly, the nature of activity undertaken at the premises which has come on record by way of evidence, is sufficient for this Court to hold that the premises is covered under an ‘industrial unit’. 13. The Taxation Rules (Amendment) 2001 were the relevant use factors are prescribed under Clause-8B, which reads as under:- “8B (4) Use Factor : The designated rate shall be increased or neither be increased nor be decreased or decreased having regard to the purpose for which the buildings other than residential are used, as follows, namely : Commercial properties : (a) The designated rate shall be increased by multiplying it – (i) by 7.0 in respect of the buildings used as under: Bank, Dispensary, Hospital, Clinic, Maternity home, Laboratory, Central Government office, State Government office, Local bodies’ office, Post office, Commercial and/or industrial office, Oil Companies office, Offices of Corporations, Tuition classes, Typing institute, godowns and warehouses of the properties falling in the above categories and those buildings which do not fall within any other sub-clause of this clause. Shop, Hotel, Restaurant, Entertainment Places etc. : (ii) By 6.0 in respect of the buildings used as under: Shop, Hotel, Restaurant, Entertainment Places, Open air theater, Petrol pump, Service station, Cinema, Club house, Gymkhana, Club’s mess, Lodging, Lodging and Boarding, Party plots (except community halls), Dish antennae, Pager antennae towers, Sign board, hoarding, Mobile phone towers, godowns and warehouses of the properties falling in the above categories. Industrial units and Factories (only for processing and manufacturing units) (iii) By 2.0 in respect of the buildings used as under : Electricity Power House, Electric sub station, Aerated Water factory, Bhattha, Brass Works, Brick and ceramic works, Cement Articles, Clay mfg. unit, Chemical Factory, Confectionery, Dairy, Distillery, Foundry, Flour Factory, Iron Factory, Zinc Factory, Silver ornament Factory, Jaggary manufacturing unit, Leather manufacturing unit, Lime chakki, Lime bhatthi, Oil extraction, Paper manufacturing, Plastic Factory, Pottery, Sagol manufacturing, Soap manufacturing, Sugar manufacturing, Tin Factory, Tobacco Factory, Work shop, Factory Steam – Gill, Auto-Garage, Factory A, B, C, D, E, F, Mill, Power loom, Hand loom. Bleaching, Bone washing, cotton spinning & dyeing, dyeing bleaching, Dhanadal Factory, Leather processing, Screen printing, Sulfur processing, Starch processing. Bleaching, Bone washing, cotton spinning & dyeing, dyeing bleaching, Dhanadal Factory, Leather processing, Screen printing, Sulfur processing, Starch processing. Variyali processing, Wool processing, Cold storage, Wood pitha, Bhathiyar khana, Repairing works, Nursery (flower plants), Animal market, Cattle stable, Weigh bridge, Binding press, Printing press, Process studio, Photo studio, Common effluent treatment plant, Godowns and Warehouses of the properties falling in the all above categories. (iv) ……” The aforementioned would also indicate the activity is that of ‘industrial unit’ which is covered under the ‘Industrial Units’ and factories (only for processing & manufacturing unit), and therefore, multiplier of 2.0 would be applicable in place of 7.0. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in (Qazi Noorul H.H.H. Petrol Pump v. E.S.I. Corpn.) (2009) 15 SCC 30 , can also be usefully relied upon, wherein paragraph-6 and 7, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “6. In this connection, it may be stated that the words "manufacturing process" in different statutes have different meanings. For instance, in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the word "manufacture" means bringing into existence a different commodity, though this is not the definition of "manufacturing process" in the Factories Act, 1948. We cannot apply the definition of "manufacturing process" in one Statute to another Statute. 7. Section 2(k), sub-clause (ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 states that pumping oil is a manufacturing process. Admittedly, the appellant does the work of pumping oil. When we go to a Petrol Pump for getting petrol or diesel, the petrol or diesel is in a tank and it does not on its own flow from the tank to the pipe and thereafter into the vehicle, but only by means of a pump by using power.” 14. In so far as the contentions of examination of Form No. 4 is concerned, the perusal of which would indicate that the place where ‘marketing division’ is appearing in Form-4 is under the heading of the description of the premises for which license is issued, and therefore, mere mention of marketing division in bracket cannot be indicative of nature of activity undertaken on the premises. 15. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that, no fault can be found with the judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 rendered by the Small Cause Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in respective Municipal Valuation Appeals and as no perversity is pointed out, the judgment being well considered and well reasoned does not deserve any interference. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals must fail and therefore are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. 17. In view of the order passed in main First Appeals, Civil Applications do not survive and disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged. Appeal dismissed.