IntheHon'ble Hieh Court of Judicature of Chhattisearh^t BilasBur/CG) tJ.pAjo- (388/o^ Petitioner ^"" Prakashchand K.ankariya, aged 48 years, Son ofChopchand Kankariya, ^-'JAINAM PALACE" Mmgal Bhawan,1 ^y.^-r^&^.."- G.E.Road, Near Mahesh Colony,. Durg, ''•^•^'A^''".'.---""" Tahsil aad District Durg (C-G-) ^^:^€^:--""""~ ^e^^<2-!-:" ws^ Respondents Versus R. . -Municipal Corporation, Durg (C.G.) ^Through - The Commissioner. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of WRIT in the nature of Mandamus certiorari, Prohibition and for aav other suitable writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENT Writ Petition No. 1388 of 2006 Prakashchand Kankariya Versus Municipal Corporation, Durg Petition u/Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, counsel for fhe respondent/Municipal Corporation. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon23.3.2011) Heard. 2. By this petition the petitioner has called in question,correctness and validity of Notice dated 4.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Revenue Officer of the Municipal Corporation, whereby property tax to the tune of Rs.2,49,608/- has been demanded from the petitioner. 3. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns a building in the Municipal Corporation area of Durg. According to the petitioner, he paid property tax on 28.7.1997 in respect of the period from 1997-98 to 2002-03 vide Annexure P-2. However,thereafter, impugned notice dated 4.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) has been issued by which the tax liability has been imposed on the petitioner. ..^A.. "^ ,f'-^'•••;^;l;h 'y, §BB8"'%i I (S^ 4. Learned counsel for fhe petitioner argued that earlier he was assessed to property tax in respect ofthe period from 1997-98 to 2002-03 @ Rs.275/- per year which was paid by him on 28.7.1997 and now the respondent have increased the property tax, presumably by carrying out fresh assessment of the annual letting value of the building of the petitioner without giving any special notice as mandatorily required under Section 146 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956"). He submits that this increase in the tax liability is violative of the aforesaid mandatory provision because that requires special notice to be given and also to consider objections, make investigation and then determine value of land or building before proceeding to make assessraent of tax based on the value of the land or building. 5. The other submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in effect and substance, the impugned notice seeks to impose tax based on higher valuation of the property with retrospective effect which is not perniissible under the law. For this purpose, the petitioner again refers to the acknowledgment of demand of tax for the period of 1997-98 to 2002-03 (Annexure P- 2). He submits that vide impugned Notice dated 4.1.2006, the property tax has been imposect in respect of the .period from 2000-06, which is illegal. He further submits that he had submitted a representation dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure P-4), but that also has not been taken into consideration nor any reply to e"'ii$. "i ^. -3- 1 :1 that has been filed. He further submits that even though according to the return of the respondent, the amount of tax was determined at Rs.31,201/- in year 2001, the total amount of tax payable by the petitioner in respect of period from 2000-06 is shown as 2,49,608/-, which is more than six tiraes the araount of tax of Rs.31,201/-. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the cases of Nagar Palika Nigam, CrwaUor Vs. Prem Prakash, GandJiiL Vya^ Kuinar S/o Suinerchand Bajhal Vs. Indore Municip^il Corporation, Indore2, and Municipal Corporation, Indoreand another Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.3. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent- Corporation submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. He submits that after the Special Area Development, Durg was dissolved ajid the building of the petitioner was brought within the limits of newly constituted Municipal Corporation, Durg, the building of the petitioner was subjected to the valuation and for that purpose special notice under Section 146 was issued on 22.5.2001 (Annexure R-l/A), wherein, the valuation 6f the building of the petitioner was assessed to Rs.3,12,010/- and on that basis, @ 10%, property tax was assessed as Rs.31,201/-. Though the petitioner could have raised an objection, no such objection was ever made. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pay » i 2002 (1) M.P.H.T. 3 (NOC) \ 2 1988 M.P.L.J. pg. 749 \ 3 1989 M.P.L.J. pg.357 ,!,••',f'"~li« 1 ^. the property tax as per the notice. When fhe petitioner failed to pay the tax for several years, another notice Annexure R-l/B was issued followed by hotice dated 2nd March, 2005 (Annexure R- 1/C) and finally a warrant (Annexure R-l/D) was issued for recovery of property tax. He further submits that the petitioner having not raised any objection, is bound by the assessment made by the Corporation. He further submits that even though the petitioner had a remedy of approaching the appellate authority, no remedy was taken. 7. The three grounds on which the notices for payment of property tax has been assailed, are: (a) that the imposition and demand of property tax is contrary to the mandatory provision of Section 146 of the Act of 1956, as the increase of tax is without special notice with statement showing grounds. (b) that though fhe petitioner has already paid the property tax @ Rs.275/- in respect of the period from 1997-98 to 2002-03 which includes period from 2000-03, the respondent have again demanded property tax in respect of that period for which tax has already been paid. (c) that the action of respondent in demanding tax amounts to imposition of increased rates of tax fr.om retrospective period which is not permissible under the law. 8. As far as fhe first ground of challenge is concerned, the same is factually not made out. Though fhe petitioner in his petition has raised this ground that no special notice was issued, respondent \ -Corporation has come out with a very specific case and pleading .KC?-;<i -5- '^..,-.. ^y and has also placed on record a notice dated 22.5.2001 (Annexure R-l/A), by which a special notice as required under Section 146 of the Act of 1956 was issued to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that any objection to that notice was filed. In fact, fhe case of the petitioner is that no special notice under Section 146 of the Act of 1956 was ever issued. In the absence of there being specific pleading by the petitioner either by way of amendnient or by rejoinder that even if notices were issued, procedure subsequent to that prescribed under Sections 147 8s 148 of the Act of 1956 was not followed, I am unable to accept the subraission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent have committed any illegality while assessing the petitioner's building to property tax. The notice under Section 146 ofthe Act of 1956 shows that the building ofthe petitioner, which is a comniercial place, was valued at Rs.3,46,678/- and after allowing deduction @10% under the provision of Section 138 of the Act of 1956, the valuation was arrived at Rs.3,12,010/- and on that basis, the tax was assessed @10%, which comes out to Rs.31,201/-. Therefore, the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 9. The other submission of leamed counsel for the petifioner that the petitioner having already paid property tax @ 275/- up to period 2002-03, no prsperty tax at the revised rate could be levied in respect of that period, proceeds on an incorrect factual submission that the petitioner was never given any special notice ^?. before fresh valuation of the building. From Notice dated 22.5.2001 (Annexure R-l/A), it is clear that as back as in the year 2001, the building of the petitioner was valued and assessed for the purpose of imposition of property tax. Therefore, payment of any amount by the petitioner at his own rates, at the most could be made a basis for seeking adjustment, but it cannot be said that the respondent could not have proceeded to recover the said amount of tax from the petitioner on the basis of notice dated 22.5.2001 (Annexure R-l/A). 10. The argument that the demand notice (Annexure P-1) amounts to imposing tax at a higher rate with retrospective effect, requires consideration. The special notice dated 22.5.2001 seeks to assess the tax of Rs.31,201/-. Therefore, on the basis of said valuation, the petitioner would be liable to pay property tax only prospectively, in accordance with law. 11. No other issue raised for consideration except those which have been argued and submitted before this Court. 12. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. 13. The respondentshall re-assess petitioner's liability for payment of tax @Rs.31,201/- on the basis of notice dated 22.5.2001, only prospectively and in accordance with law. However, in respect of all subsequent period, the dem.and notice is upheld. Praveen Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge (-