CWP No.400 of 2008 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 20.11.2009 M/s.Jainsons through Adsish Jain, Co-Proprietor. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.PC Goyal, Addl.AG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with, Mr.Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, for respondent No.2. PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern. It is owner of two shops bearing Nos.7-8 and 31-32 situated at Air Conditioned Market, Adalat Bazar, Patiala. The shops were assessed for the purpose of House Tax under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) Since the establishment of the Municipal Corporation in the year 1997, the shops are being subjected to House Tax on its annual value. It is stated that each shop was assessed to House Tax at the rate of Rs. 1260/- per annum in accordance with annual value fixed under Section 3 of the Act. The transactions were, however, revised after amendment of Section 3 of the Act, vide Punjab Municipal Amendment Act, 1994. A large number of assessees challenged the aforesaid amendment in various writ petitions including Civil Writ Petition No.1801 CWP No.400 of 2008 : 2 : of 1995. A batch of writ petitions came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.08.2001 and the amendment was struck down. The State of Punjab, filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was allowed and the vires of the amendment was upheld. It appears that the State Government after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, issued instructions dated 03.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) granting certain benefits to the assessees. Even though the petitioner did not file any writ petition challenging the amendment, but on the issuance of the aforesaid instructions, the petitioner claimed benefit of the same vide application Annexure P-2. The plea of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 23.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) on the grounds that benefit of the instructions is available only to the parties in the aforesaid litigation. The petitioner was also asked to inform if the party is related to the case. Thereafter, the petitioner received notice of demand for payment of House Tax vide notice dated 26.09.2007 for a sum of Rs.97,762/- in respect to aforesaid shop No.7-8, but no notice has been received in respect to other shop bearing Nos.31-32. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this petition seeking various directions, the principal contention being that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of government instructions. During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also confined his arguments to the benefit emanating from the government notification/communication dated 03.10.2007 (Annexure P-1). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. CWP No.400 of 2008 : 3 : Mr.Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, has vehemently argued that the benefit under Annexure P-1 is meant only for the parties to the writ petitions and the SLP. With a view to canvass his point of view, he has referred to the document wherein in the subject matter, the reference is made to the Supreme Court judgment and the writ petitions filed in the High Court. The only point that needs to be considered in the present writ petition is the applicability of Annexure P-1. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid document. From the reading of the document, it is abundantly clear that these instructions are not confined to the parties to the litigation which fact is evident from the use of various expressions in the document, like “by taking care of the problem of the people, the owners of commercial properties for personal use” and particularly the paragraph wherein the following averments have been made:- “Here it is also made clear that those assessees who have paid the remaining balance with interest or without interest till the issuance of the letter, they would also get the above rebates and the amount of these rebates would be adjusted in their future tax.” All these expressions and the language used in Annexure P-1, clearly qualify that the intention of the government is to grant the benefit to all the assessees whose cases are covered by the judgment and relate to the assessment years 2003-2007. Thus, the contention of Mr.Mittal that the benefit is available only to the parties to the litigation, is without any substance and basis. To the contrary, the benefit emanating from the aforesaid CWP No.400 of 2008 : 4 : document will be available to all the assessees for the years 2003-2007 notified in the document itself. Taking totality of the circumstances, particularly, the aforesaid document Annexure P-1, into consideration, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation to grant the benefit of Annexure P-1 to the petitioners for the assessment years 2003 to 2008 and modify the demand accordingly. The petitioners shall be liable to pay the modified demand within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such demand. No costs. 20.11.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO