Leaving a bill for property tax in the premises of the owner or occupier without making diligent efforts to find them does not constitute adequate service under Sec. 266 read with Sec. 630 and 631 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955.

CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, ACJ.

( 1 ) (JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by the Hon ble the Acting Chief Justice) How is a bill for property tax issued by the Municipal Corporation of hyderabad to be served on the owner? would it been effective and adequate service, If it is left in the premises after informing the same to a servant, when the owner or occupier is absent at the time when the Corporation official takes notice to the premises ? The petitioner in this case contends that ic is not proper service, while the Corporation maintains that it is.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of certain premises within the area of the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is said that he fell into arrears of property tax from 1969 to 1974. It is the case of the petitioner that no bill of tax of the property had been served in regard to the amount claimed in the demand notice dated 6-2-1974 as required under sec. 266 read with Sections 630 and 631. In the counter affidavit the Corporation has asserted that before Issuing the demand notice, bills were sent to the petitioner. Since the manner of sending the bills has not been explicitly stated in the counter affidavit, we have given an opportunity to the Corporation to file another affidavit stating the manner of sending the notice. Accordingly, an affidavit of 6th October, 1975 has been filed. It has been sworn to by the Biil Collector who claims to have taken the notice to the petitioner s premises. This is what he says in additional affidavit:"on 19-1-1974 1 went to the house of the petitioner bearing No. 10-2-350 situated at Asifnagar, Hyderabad to serve the bill showing the arrears of house tax of Rs 5,906-02 Ps at about 10 a. m. but the petitioner was not there at that time. The maid servant said that she does not know anything. Thereupon I left the said bill on the table asking her to give it to the petitioner and came away. "

( 3 ) WE have no reason to doubt the statements made in the two counter affidavits So, we accept that the notice was left in the premises of the petitioner when he was absent.

( 4 ) SRI Tej Ra4 Kapoor for the petitioner, contends that this is not an adequate service and so, the entire demand, falls to the ground. In addition, he raises three other points that the claim for more than three years is barred by limitation, that the, amount claimed Is, not. correct and that the demand is for three premises and the clubbing of them is unwarranted, since two of the premises are joint family assets while one is a self-acquired property. The point that has been debated before us is in regard to the. adequacy of service of the bill.

( 5 ) SEC. 266 of. the Hyderabad municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (here inafter called "the Act") lays down that when any property tax has become due, the Commissioner, shall, with the least practicable delay, cause to he served upon the, person liable for the payment thereof a bill for the sum due. In sub-sec. (2) what should be specified in the bill, are stated. Equally Important is the provision for an appeal against the decision indicated in the bill. Then comes the notice of demand which is provided under Sec. 268. Its provisions also art very materiel and Important. It says that when the amount of tax for which any bill has been served as aforesaid is not paid into the municipal office within fifteen days from the service thereof, the commissioner may cause to be served upon the person liable for the payment of the same a notice of demand in the form prescribed. Then the succeeding sections lay down the procedure for collecting the amounts in demand through process of distress. Now these provisions read together clearly show that service of bill for tax upon the person liable for the payment is essential; we may say mandatory. Sub-sec. (I) of Sec. 266 uses the word shall when it provides for service of the bill upon the person liable for the payment. Apart from the use of the word shall the very fact that It should contain all the details

Click Here to Read the rest of this document