Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
New Delhi Municipal Committee, Appellant
Versus
The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Respondent.
(1) Civil appeal No. 289 of 1974:
AND
(2) Civil appeal No. 611 of 1974:
New Delhi Municipal Committee, appellant
Versus
Om Prakash and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos.289 and 611 of 1974,
Advocates Appeared
Mr. F.S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate (M/S. Bikramjit Nayar, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, Advocates with him), for Appellant (in both the appeals); M/s. K.L. Hathi, Ravindra Sethi and P.C. Kapoor, Advocates, for Respondent in C.A. No. 289 of 1974.
Punjab Municipal Act, 3 of 1911 – Section, 67 - Quash - Life Insurance Corporation of India - Court will refer to appellant as Municipal Committee and to respondent as owner of building known as Parliament Street New Delhi - Municipal Committee assessed building to house tax for years basis of actual rent received - Paid tax as assessed for these years but in February it received five notices from municipal Committee stating that in exercise powers conferred by Punjab Municipal Act had decided by resolution January to amend lists of assessment for aforesaid five years by including therein rent of portion of basement building which had escaped inclusion in respective lists - In June filed writ petition in Delhi High Court praying that aforesaid resolutions of Municipal Committee be quashed and that it be restrained from realizing additional tax which it proposed to levy under its resolution on ground that it had no jurisdiction to amend assessment lists of previous years - In view of importance of question writ petition was referred for decision to Full Bench of High Court - Held, Corporation having sought to levy property tax in accordance with revised rates for year suit was filed by assesses for declaration that it was not entitled to recover tax at revised rates for that year - Suit was decreed by trial Court and High Court - In appeal to this Court two contentions were raised on behalf of Municipal Corporation namely that authentication of assessment list in order to be valid and effective need not be made before expiry official year to which assessment list relates suit was barred - Court are not concerned with second question nor indeed with firs but in order to understand respondents argument it is necessary to state that this Court held on first question that an assessment list intended for particular year must be authenticated before expiry of previous official year and it is not so authenticated it will not give rise to any liability in ratepayers to pay tax for year for which it is intended to be effective - This pronouncement does not touch points in controversy before us - Nor indeed can any assistance be derived from interpretation put Bombay Act in that case - That provision contemplate sinter alia amendments or alterations in two cases Those in regard to buildings constructed altered added to or reconstructed in regard to other cases - As regards first categories of Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act provides that amendment or alteration shall have same effect as if it had been made in case of building constructed altered added to or reconstructed on day on which such construction alteration addition or reconstruction was first occupied whoever first occurs - As regards second category namely other case alteration takes effect as it had been made on earliest day in current official year on which circumstances justifying entry or alteration existed - Discussion of this sub-section at page report is in respect of second category cases in regard to which there is an express statutory provision that amendment takes effect only from earliest day of official year current when amendment is made - Court do not think that there is any parallel between Bombay Act and Punjab Municipal - Appeals allowed
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, J. - These appeals, by a certificate of fitness granted by the Delhi High Court, arise out of a common judgment dated March 27, 1973 given by the High Court in writ pertitions filed by the respondents against the appellant, the New Delhi Municipal Committee. The facts of the two writ petitions being similar, we will only set out those of Civil Appeal No. 289 of 1974, which arises out of a writ petition filed in the High Court by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
2. For convenience, we will refer to the appellant as the the Municipal Committee; and to the respondent as the L.I.C.. The L.I.C. is the owner of a building known as Jeevan Vihar Parliament Street, New Delhi. The Municipal Committee assessed the building to house-tax for the years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 on the basis of actual rent received by the L.I.C. The L.I.C. paid the tax as assessed for these years but in February 1968 it received five notices from the municipal Committee stating, that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 3 of 1911, it had decided by a resolution dated January 27, 1968 to amend the lists of assessment for the aforesaid five years by including therein the rent of a portion of the basement of the building which had escaped inclusion in the respective lists.
3. In June 1968, the L.I.C. filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court praying that the aforesaid resolutions of the Municipal Committee be quashed and that it be restrained from realising the additional tax which it proposed to levy under its resolution, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction under Sec. 67 of the Act to amend the assessment lists of previous years. In view of the importance of the question, the writ petition was referred for decision to a Full Bench of the High Court.
4. The High Court has held that the assessment lists settled under Section 66 of the Act together with the amendments if any, can only operate prospectively in and for the the financial year next follwing and not for any previous year. In this view, the High Court allowed the writ petition except in regard to the amendment made in the list of 1967-68. The other writ petition too was allowed except for the year 1966-67.
5. Chapter V of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 deals with Taxation. Section 61 (1) (a) thereof authorises imposition of a tax payable by the owners on buildings and lands. Section 62 provides that the Municipal Committee may, at a special meeting, pass a resolution proposing the imposition of any tax under Section 61. Sections 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 prescribe the procedure for assessing immovable properties to property tax. Section 63 provides that the Committee shall cause an assessment list to be prepared of all buildings and lands on which any tax is proposed to be imposed. By. S.64, on completion of the assessment list, the committee is required to give public notice of the place where the list or a copy thereof may be inspected. Section 65 requires the committee, at the time of publication of this list, to give a public notice as to the time when it will proceed to revise the valuation and assessment made in the list. For this purpose, the committee is required to invite objections to the valuation and assessment within the time fixed in the notice.
6. The question for decision in these appeals depends primarily on the construction of Sections 66 and 67 of the Act, which must be reproduced fully. These sections read as follows:
"66 (1) After the objections have been enquired into and the persons making them have been allowed an opportunity of the being heard either in person or by authorized agent, as they may think fit, and the revision of the valuation and assessment has been completed, the amendments made in the list shall be authenticated by the signatures of not less then two members of the committee, who shall at the same time certify that no valid objection has been made to the valuation and asse
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
