1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9790/2008. H.P.C.L. (M.D.P.L.Opns) VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others. 18.03.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr.Anant Kasliwal, for the petitioner. Mr.B.K.Sharma, for the respondent No.4. ***** Instant petition has been filed assailing the notice (Annexure-7) dated 17.01.2008 issued by Municipal Board, Bagru, Jaipur directing petitioner to deposit urban development tax in terms of notification issued by the Government in exercise of power under Section 297 read with Section 104 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 dated 29.08.2007. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a Government Company and the tax cannot be levied in pursuance to notification dated 29.08.2007 to the petitioner and apart from it while the tax was determined by the respondents in pursuance of the notification dated 29.08.2007, no opportunity was afforded to petitioner which certainly caused prejudice. Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that after notice (Annexure-7) dated 17.01.2008 was served, petitioner has submitted his 2 reply which is on record as Annexure-R/2 dated 30.04.2008 and finally the tax which was to be charged from petitioner was informed vide Annexure-R/4 dated 17.05.2008. However, tax could not be further levied because of the stay order passed by this court on 11.09.2008. Counsel for respondent submits that final assessment of urban development tax in pursuance of notification is an appealable order under provisions of Municipalities Act, 1959 and if at all the petitioner feels aggrieved, he may file appeal, if so advised. From bare perusal of petition, it is borne out that petitioner has challenged the notice (Annexure-7) dated 17.01.2008. However, petitioner further prayed that petitioner-Corporation is liable to pay urban development tax on the basis of the land being treated as industrial/institutional in nature. There is no pleading in petition so far as assailing the notification by the Government (Annexure-8) dated 29.08.2007 is concerned. However, on the other hand, counsel for petitioner has prayed that tax could not be recovered from petitioner under the notification. Suffice it to say that once a notice has been served that will be finalized only after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner and what was communicated to petitioner vide Annexure-7 dated 17.07.2008 a demand computed by the Municipality but the same can certainly be finalized after hearing the petitioner. 3 Material has been placed by respondent to show that reply was submitted by petitioner. However, it is expected from the Municipality to decide the representation submitted by petitioner in reference to notice (Annexure-7) after affording an opportunity of hearing which is the requirement for compliance of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of with direction that respondent-Municipality will determine the tax which is to be levied from the petitioner in pursuance to the notification (Annexure-18) dated 29.08.2007 only after affording an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. For this purpose, the petitioner's representative will appear before the authority of Municipal Board, Bagru on 20.04.2009. If at all the petitioner feels aggrieved by the final assessment of tax, he is free to avail the remedy available to him under the law. However, it is made clear that pending decision, the respondents shall not initiate any coercive action against petitioner to recover the amount of tax, as referred to in Annexure-7 dated 17.01.2008. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. (AJAY RASTOGI),J Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.