IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Lodha S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Satish Dattatray Shivalkar (Dr.) .... Petitioner.
Versus
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 543 of 1993, decided on 6-2-2002.
Advocates appeared :
Smt. Aniketa Aher-Sawant for A.V. Anturkar, for petitioner.
Property Tax - Assessment of Property - Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Rule 20
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash special notices and bills for the retrospective assessment of property taxes on the grounds of unlawful demand and contravention of the Act of 1949 and its rules. The petitioner's objections were not considered, and the demand was raised with retrospective effect from 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the retrospective amendment of the assessment book was in violation of Rule 20(1)(e) of the Act of 1949, which stipulates that any amendment in the assessment book can only be effective during the official year. The demand for property tax with retrospective effect was not justified.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lawfulness of the retrospective assessment of property taxes and the consideration of the petitioner's objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Rule 20(1)(e) and the definition of 'official year' under section 2(44) of the Act of 1949, as well as previous judgments, to conclude that property tax must be levied only during the official year.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the special notices and bills to the extent that property tax had been raised with retrospective effect. The respondents were directed to issue fresh demand of property taxes in accordance with the court's observations.
2. The grievance of the petitioner arises in the following circumstances:
The petitioner has properties bearing Nos. P/B/3/1/101 and P/B/3/1/103 being residential flats at Ajmeera Housing Complex, Pimpri, Pune, (for short, “the said property”). The petitioner is running his hospital in the said property since 1985. The said property has been assessed as residential complex for the purposes of property taxes. By the impugned notices and bills, the said property is sought to be assessed as commercial complex with retrospective effect from 1985 for the purposes of property taxes. According to the petitioner, the demand raised by the respondents is unlawful and in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, “Act of 1949”) and the Rules framed thereunder. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed objections to the notices both dated 16-1-1991, but the respondents have not considered the petitioner's objections and if considered, has not intimated the decision taken on the said representations and instead issued two bills dated 12-12-1991. The only challenge to the aforesaid notices dated 8-1-1991 and the bills dated 12-12-1991 is to the extent the amendment has been made in the assessment book with retrospective effect. According to the petitioner, the said action is in clear violation of Rule 20 of Taxation Rules (Chapter VIII) of the Act of 1949.
3. Rule 20 reads thus :
“20.(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) the Commissioner may upon representation of any person concerned or upon any other information at any time during the official year to which the assessment-book relates amend the same.-
(a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be so inserted or any premises previously omitted;
(b) by striking out the name of any person not liable to the property tax;
(c) by increasing or reducing the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment based thereupon;
(d) by altering the assessment on any land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or mistake;
(e) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building erected, re-erected, altered, added to or reconstructed in whole or in part after the preparation of the assessment-book;
(f) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any premises from liability to any property tax.
(2) Where any amendment is made under sub-rule (1) which has the effect of imposing on any person any liability for the payment of property taxes which would not be incurred but for such amendment or which has the effect of increasing the rateable value of premises as stated in the assessment-book, a special written notice as provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 shall be given by the Commissioner and, as far as may be, the procedure laid down in Rules 16, 17 and 18 shall be followed.
(3) Every such amendment shall be deemed to have been made, for the purpose of determining the liability or exemption of the person concerned in accordance with the altered entry, from the earliest day in the current official year when the circumstances justifying the amendment existed.”
4. The similar provision occurring in Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (for short, “Act of 1925”), came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in (Solapur Municipal Corporation v. Ramchandra Ramappa Madgundi)1, 1972(74) Bom.L.R. 469. The expression “current official year” occurring in section 82(3) of the Act of 1925 was construed to mean the earliest day in the official year which is current when the amendment of the assessment list takes place. In other words, the expression “current official year”, as per the Full B
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.