Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. P. Talukdar
ADARSH MAHILA SHIKSHA PRATISTHAN - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT TRIBUNAL - Respondent
C. O. 23 Of 2004
Decided On : 10/14/2004
MUNICIPAL TAXATION - ANNUAL VALUATION - CALCULATION - RENT - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION: 1. The term "rent" in the context of municipal tax must be interpreted in a manner consistent with its meaning under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 2. "Rent" for the purpose of municipal tax should be confined to the charges paid for the use and occupation of land and building, excluding other components such as furniture hire charges or municipal rates and taxes. 3. The annual valuation should be determined based on the gross annual rent reasonably expected to be received from year to year, less an allowance for repairs and other necessary expenses. 4. The Municipal Assessment Tribunal correctly considered relevant factors and proceeded on the basis of settled legal principles in calculating the annual valuation. 5. The High Court found no merit in the petitioner's grievances and affirmed the impugned orders of the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a charitable organization, challenged the annual valuation of its commercial premises fixed by the Hearing Officer and upheld by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the scope of "rent" and erred in its calculation of the annual valuation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the term "rent" in the context of municipal tax and properly considered relevant factors in calculating the annual valuation. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and no jurisdictional infirmity in the Tribunal's orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the application under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable in the given circumstances? 2. Whether the Hearing Officer and the Appellate Tribunal dealt with the petitioner's grievances in proper perspective? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has the power to intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution to ensure that an inferior court or tribunal does not act beyond its jurisdiction, even if an alternative remedy is available. 2. The Tribunal correctly interpreted the term "rent" in the context of municipal tax as the charges paid for the use and occupation of land and building, excluding other components such as furniture hire charges or municipal rates and taxes. 3. The Tribunal properly considered relevant factors and proceeded on the basis of settled legal principles in calculating the annual valuation, including the gross annual rent reasonably expected to be received, less an allowance for repairs and other necessary expenses.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's applications under Article 227 of the Constitution, upholding the impugned orders of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's grievances and affirmed the annual valuation fixed by the Tribunal.
( 1 ) 1. Both the cases relate to identical points of law and facts. Those were heard together and being disposed of by the common judgment.
( 2 ) SUBJECT-MATTER of the present controversy is annual valuation in respect of premises No. IOC, Sir William Jones Sarani (formerly known as Middleton row ). Petitioner No. 1, Adarsh Mahila Shiksha Pratisthan, which is a registered charitable organization, is its owner. The preceding annual valuation of the said premises was Rs. 2,67,730/- with effect from 4th quarter 1978-79. But the hearing Officer by the impugned order dated 26. 05. 1992 fixed the annual valuation at Rs. 13,71,600/- with effect from 4th quarter 1984-85. Petition was filed before the Municipal Commissioner on 15. 07. 1992 for reconsideration, which is still pending. Petitioner then filed a writ petition which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 30. 06. 2000 on the ground that alternative remedy was available. An appeal was preferred and the learned Division Bench of the hon'ble High Court by judgment and order dated 14. 09. 2000 directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal.
( 3 ) THE said Tribunal was approached by the petitioner by way of filing two appeals of which the other one was in respect of the assessment year i. e. , for the period 4th quarter 1990-91. Both the appeals. , i. e. , M. A. A. No. 3822 of 2000 was allowed in part and annual valuation was assessed at Rs. 12,64,700/- with effect from 4th quarter of 1984-85 and M. A. A. No. 3823 of 2000 was dismissed and the annual valuation was assessed at Rs. 16,84,800/- with effect from 4th quarter 1990-91.
( 4 ) REVIEW application was filed and the same was dismissed as well.
( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the impugned judgment and order dated 12. 12. 2000 and 23. 10. 03, petitioners by filing two separate applications under Article 227 of the Constitution prayed for setting aside of the same.
( 6 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and taking into consideration the relevant facts and materials it seems the following points require adjudication by this Court: (I) Is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Did the Hearing Officer and the Appellate Tribunal deal with the grievances of the petitioner in proper perspective? (iii) Is the petitioner entitled to get any relief? If so, to what extent?
( 7 ) POINT No. (i): On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the High court in its exercise of power under Article 227 can always intervene when it finds that the order under challenge of the Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, was passed without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner apart from referring to the decision in the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U. P.) and Ors. , reported in AIR 1987 SC 2186, drew attention of the Court to the decision in the case of shama Prashant Raje vs. Ganpatrao and Ors. , reported in 2000 (7) SCC 522. The supreme/court in the said reported case observed that notwithstanding the fact that jurisdiction of High Court acting in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory, not appellate, if perusal of the order of an inferior tribunal leads the High Court to the conclusion that (i) such Tribunal has committed a manifest error by misconstruing a document; or (ii) that on the materials on record a reasonable man could not have come to the conclusions reached by the Tribunal; or (iii) the Tribunal has ignored relevant material; or (iv) taken into consideration inadmissible material, the High Court would be fully justified in interfering with the findings of the inferior Tribunal.
( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the scope of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution is narrow and limited. Referring to the decision in the case of Sadhana Lodh vs. N
AI
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
