The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, does not empower the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to form a committee to assess property taxes, and the provisions of the said Act, 1980, which impose the primary liability to pay property tax on the lessor, are applicable even if the deed of lease executed between the parties contains contrary provisions.

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

1. Let affidavit-of-service be kept on record.

2. This writ application is filed by the petitioners assailing an order dated August 13, 2014 passed by a committee consisting of the following persons:

1. The Controller of Municipal Finance & Accounts;

2. The Chief Municipal Law Officer;

3. The Chief Manager (Revenue);

4. The Assessor-Collector (South);

5. The Assessor-Collector (North;

6. The Assessor-Collector (Tollygunge Tax Department).

3. The impugned order was communicated to the petitioners by the respondent No.3 by a communication dated August 13, 2014.

4. With the consent of the parties present before this Court, this matter is taken up for final disposal on the basis of the materials available on record as also considering the submissions of the respective parties.

5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate, that the impugned order was passed in compliance of the order dated July 25, 2013 passed in the matter of Fabworth Promoters Private Ltd. & Anr. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No.9372 (W) of 2012 with CAN 880 of 2013). According to Mr. Jethmalani, there was a direction upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to assess the property taxes in respect of the premises lying and situated at 4A, JBS Halden Avenue, Kolkata- 700105 in accordance with law.

6. According to Mr. Jethmalani, law did not prescribe formation of a committee to assess the property taxes of the property under reference.

7. According to him, the petitioners were lessees under Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) Section 193 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1980), the respondent No.11 was under obligation to pay the property taxes of the above premises subject to realisation of that payment either fully or in part, as the case may be, from the lessee, i.e. the petitioners herein under the provisions of Section 230 of the said Act, 1980. And there was no scope of realisation of above property taxes from the petitioners invoking the provisions of second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 193 or sub-section (3A) of Section 193 of the said Act, 1980, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessment register of Kolkata Municipal Corporation contained the name of the respondent No.11 (Annexure "P-3" at page 1030 of this writ application).

8. According to the Mr. Jethmalani, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was under obligation to take into consideration the provisions of Clause (a) (ii) of sub-section (8) of Section 171 read with the provisions of Section 176 of the said Act, 1980 to assess the annual valuation and to assess the property tax on the basis of such valuation. According to him, those provisions were not taken into consideration at the time of passing of the impugned order though the written objection which had been filed by the petitioners before the aforesaid committee contained above objection for consideration of the above point of law.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 9, that there was no bar and/or impediment to pass the impugned order by a committee formed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in the light of the final order dated July 25, 2013 in W.P. No.9372 (W) of 2012.

10. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that in view of the terms and conditions of the deed of lease executed by and between the petitioners and respondent No.11, there was no obligation of the above committee to consider the case of liability of the lessor. The attention of this Court is drawn towards condition 2(b) of the deed of lease dated September 28, 2007 executed by and between the petitioners and the respondent No.11. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the petitioners were responsible to pay the property taxes of the property u