Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
Matter 159 Of 1971
Decided On : APRIL 30, 1973
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 191, 200 - CONSOLIDATED RATE - LIABILITY OF OWNER TO PAY BOTH OWNER'S AND OCCUPIER'S SHARES - CONDITIONS - DISCRETION OF COMMISSIONER - HEARING BEFORE LEVY - PRESENTATION OF BILL FOR BOTH SHARES WITHOUT PRIOR ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF 'LEVY'.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a limited company, challenged the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, bills for both owner's share and occupier's share of consolidated rates relating to 17 premises for the period starting with the 1st quarter 1968-69 to 4th quarter 1970-71, as well as subsequent bills and notices of demand. The petitioner contended that the bills were not signed, that the notices of demand were sent for periods for which payments had already been made, and that the Corporation could not levy both the owner's and occupier's shares without a prior order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had received the rate bills and that the Corporation had followed the proper procedure in presenting them. The court also found that the Corporation had the authority to levy both the owner's and occupier's shares under Section 200 of the Act, as the premises were occupied by more than one person and were valued at less than five hundred rupees. The court further held that the expression 'levy' in Section 200 meant collection and not assessment or determination of liability, and that therefore a prior order was not required before presenting the bill for both shares.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had received the rate bills and whether the Corporation had followed the proper procedure in presenting them. 2. Whether the Corporation had the authority to levy both the owner's and occupier's shares under Section 200 of the Act. 3. Whether a prior order was required before presenting the bill for both shares.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had received the rate bills and that the Corporation had followed the proper procedure in presenting them, as there was no requirement in the Act for the bills to be signed. 2. The court held that the Corporation had the authority to levy both the owner's and occupier's shares under Section 200 of the Act, as the premises were occupied by more than one person and were valued at less than five hundred rupees. The court found that the discretion granted to the Commissioner under Section 200 was circumscribed by the conditions mentioned in the section itself, and that the Commissioner was bound to take resort to Section 200 if either of these conditions were fulfilled and the occupiers did not voluntarily pay their shares. 3. The court held that a prior order was not required before presenting the bill for both shares, as the expression 'levy' in Section 200 meant collection and not assessment or determination of liability.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule nisi.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, a limited company, challenges in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Kate Bills for both owner's share and occupier's share of consolidated rates relating to 17 Premises under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, being Premises Nos. 21, 23, 25-A, 25-B, 27-A, 27-B, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 55 and 57, Park Street, Calcutta, for the period starting with the 1st quarter 1968-69 to 4lh quarter 1970-71, being Annexure "a" to the petition, both shares of the Rate Bills relating to the said 17 Premises described in Annexures 'b' and 'c' of the petition, the three letters dated 17th of March, 1971 and the notices of demand dated 3rd March, 1971, being Annexure 'd' to the petition and the Rate Bills dated 1st of January, 1971, being Annexure 'f' to the petition. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this application it would be necessary to set out certain facts. On the 1st of May, 1952, the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 came into force. Prior to 26th of June, 1954, there was a general valuation of all lands and buildings in the then Ward No. 53 in which all the premises of the petitioner mentioned hereinbefore were situated under Section 172 (2) of the Act of 1951. With effect from the 2nd quarter 1954-55, the Assessor to the Corporation of Calcutta sought to amalgamate sixteen of the premises of the petitioner into three premises and put amalgamated calculations therein. On the 5th of December, 1955, on the application made by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, an order was passed by D. N. Sinha, J. , (as his Lordship then was), whereby the said amalgamations and new valuations were quashed and the learned Judge directed the Corporation to proceed according to law. Between 9th of March, 1957 and 12th of March, 1957, four notices under Section 175 of the Act were issued by the then Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta proposing to amalgamate the said sixteen premises. Between 31st March, I960 and 6th April, 1960, by sixteen notices under Section 180 of the Act of 1951 in respect of the said premises excepting premises No. 27-B, Park Street, the petitioner was informed by the Assessor that the valuation under Section 172 (3) (b) read with Section 172 (4), as shown in the said notices, would remain in force from 2nd quarter of 1954-55 until further valuation the earlier valuation having been cancelled on the ground of irregularity. On the 18th of April, 1960 four letters from Assistant Assessor were written to the petitioner, informing that the four notices of proposed amalgamation stood cancelled and separate notices for revaluation would be issued. On the 12th of September, 1960, seventeen notices under Section 180 of the Act of 1951 one in respect of each of the said seventeen premises, intimating the petitioner about the increased annual valuation of the said premises with effect from the second quarter of 1960-61, were issued. On the 22nd of March, 1963, several orders were passed by the Special Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta disposing of objections filed by the petitioner in respect of two lots of notices under S. 180 of the said Act. On the 20th of September, 1963, the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the notices issued under Section 180 of the Act of 1951 and the said orders thereon, all dated 22nd March, 1963, whereupon a Rule was issued which was numbered as Matter No. 398 of 1963. On the 6th of March, 1964 interim order of injunction was passed in the said Matter No. 398 of 1963 and on the 11th March, 1965, the said matter was heard. Between 7th of January, 1967 and 7th of March, 1967, the petitioner received twenty Rate Bills for 3rd and 4th Quarters 1966-67 in respect of the Premises Nos. 25-A, 25-B, 27-A, 27-B and 47, Park Street, by which the respondent sought to charge the consolidated tax in respect of the said premises at the rate of 30 1/2%. On 12th April
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
