Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
NARENDRA DEV NARAYAN - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
W. P. 4809 Of 2002
Decided On : 05/23/2002
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - SECTION 188(2) AND 188(3) - RULES 9(2) AND 9(3)(F) - INTERPRETATION - SERVICE OF COPY OF ORDER - FORM 'H' - REQUIREMENTS - PRACTICE OF NOT SUPPLYING COPY OF ORDER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged an enhanced assessment order and the consequent fresh consolidated bill issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The petitioner contended that the right to prefer an appeal accrues only after the service of a copy of the order of assessment passed by the Hearing Officer after deciding objections. The corporation contended that the order of assessment was appealable before the Tribunal constituted under Section 189 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the writ application was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a copy of the order passed by the Hearing Officer in determining the objections raised by the petitioner, as per Section 188(3) of the Act and Rule 9(2) of the Rules. The court found that the communication of the valuation arrived at by the Hearing Officer, as in Annexure P-3, did not conform to the prescribed form 'H' and did not constitute a true copy of the order. The court further held that the long-standing practice of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation of not supplying the exact copy of the order but only the figure evaluated after determination of objection was not valid and did not dispense with the requirement of serving a copy of the order.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a copy of the order passed by the Hearing Officer in determining the objections raised by the petitioner? 2. Whether the communication of the valuation arrived at by the Hearing Officer, as in Annexure P-3, constituted a true copy of the order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 188(3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and Rule 9(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987, clearly provide that a copy of the order passed by the Hearing Officer in determining objections raised by an assessee shall be supplied to the assessee free of costs. 2. The communication of the valuation arrived at by the Hearing Officer, as in Annexure P-3, did not conform to the prescribed form 'H' and did not constitute a true copy of the order as it did not contain the reasons for the decision. 3. The long-standing practice of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation of not supplying the exact copy of the order but only the figure evaluated after determination of objection was not valid and did not dispense with the requirement of serving a copy of the order.
Final Decision: The court quashed Annexures P-3 and P-4, the enhanced assessment order and the consequent fresh consolidated bill issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The court directed the corporation authority to supply a true copy of the order to the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to challenge the decision by preferring an appeal before the Tribunal within 45 days after the formal service of the copy of the order.
( 1 ) BY this writ application an assessee has challenged an enhanced assessment order being Annexure P-3 and the consequent fresh consolidated bill being Annexure P-4 and has prayed for reassessment of petitioner's flat. 2. Mr. Das Adhikary, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation has taken a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the instant writ application. Mr. Das Adhikary contends that the order of assessment being appealable before the Tribunal constituted under S. 189 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 ("act"), this Court should not entertain this writ application. Mr. Das Adhikary further submits that Annexure P-4, the fresh consolidated bill was issued in the month of July 2001 whereas the instant writ application has been filed on April 9, 2002 long after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in the Act for preferring appeal against the order of assessment.
( 2 ) MR. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has seriously disputed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Das Adhikary and has contended that right to prefer appeal against order of assessment accrues only after the service of copy of the order of assessment passed by the Hearing Officer after deciding objections given by the petitioner. According to Mr. Ghosh, by Annexure P-3, only the figure arrived at after determination under S. 188 (2) of the Act has been communicated but the copy of the order in reaching the decision has not yet been served. Mr. Ghosh contends that before the service of copy of order as enjoined under S. 188 (3) of the Act, the Corporation cannot demand payment of the tax at the enhanced rate. Mr. Ghosh thus contends that so long the copy of the actual order passed by the Hearing Officer in coming to the conclusion as regards fresh valuation is not supplied, the petitioner does not get any right to prefer appeal and as such the subsequent demand through the Annexure P-4 on the basis of Annexure P-3 should also be quashed.
( 3 ) TO appreciate the dispute involved in this writ application the following Sections of the Act and the Rules of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 ("rules") are relevant and those are quoted below :-"section 188. Hearing of objections.- (1) Objections filed under S. 186 shall be entered in a register maintained for the purpose in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) On that date, time and place specified under sub-sec. (3) or sub-sec. (4) of S. 184 and after giving the person filing the objections an opportunity of being heard, either in person or through an authorised agent, the officer appointed under S. 187 shall determine the objections. (3) When an objection has been determined, the order in this behalf shall be recorded in the register maintained under sub-sec. (1) with the date, and a copy of the order shall be supplied within thirty days thereof to the person filing the objection in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (4) The procedure for hearing and disposal of objections shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) The valuation fixed after determination of objection under this section shall take effect from the quarter in which such valuation would have taken effect and shall continue to remain in force during the period such valuation would have remained in force, had no objections been filed. Section 189. Appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2), (2a), (3) to (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) Any owner or person liable to payment of consolidated rate may, if dissatisfied with the determination of objection under S. 188 appeal to the Tribunal : provided that such appeal shall be presented to the Tribunal within forty-five days from the date of service of a copy of the order under S. 188 and shall be accompanied by a copy of the said order. (6) and (7 ). . . .
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
