2015 Supreme(Cal) 607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
M/s. Tirupati Niriyat Pvt. Ltd. & Others – Appellants
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Others – Opposite Parties
A.S.T. Nos. 145, 144 of 2015 with A.S.T.A. Nos. 83, 84 of 2015
Decided On : 04-08-2015

In the event, the appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid revision of the annual valuation then the appellants should exhaust the alternative statutory remedy available under the statute by preferring appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority.

Headnote:

PROPERTY TAX - ANNUAL VALUATION - REVISION - GROUNDS - NOTICE -Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Section 174, 178(5), 180, 189, 232A - Where the Hearing Officer being the Prescribed Authority under the statute revised the annual valuation in respect of the property in question and served hearing notices inviting written objections in respect of the said annual valuation on the ground specifically mentioned in the said notices, the appellants herein duly understood the grounds on which annual valuation was revised in respect of the property in question for the specified quarter and accordingly, submitted written objections upon receiving the said hearing notices. The representative of the appellants also participated in the hearing before the Hearing Officer. Before the Hearing Officer, it was specifically submitted on behalf of the appellants that the annual valuation should be determined on the basis of realised rent only and not on "realizable rent". The Hearing Officer being the Competent Authority considered the objections made on behalf of the assesse concerned namely, the appellants herein and determined the annual valuation in respect of the specified quarter/period. In the event, the appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid revision of the annual valuation then the appellants should exhaust the alternative statutory remedy available under the statute by preferring appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants herein are the co-owners of the premises no. 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata - 700 019 which is a ground plus four storied building. Being aggrieved by the notices of demand dated 2nd April, 2014 and 19th June, 2014 respectively and also by the letter of intimation dated 2nd February, 2014 showing outstanding of the property tax for certain quarters as mentioned therein and on account of failure to consider the objections as mentioned in the letter of the learned advocate of the appellants herein dated 12th March, 2014 and further being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities to realise property tax on disputed annual valuation, appellants herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 27528 (W) of 2014.

Finding of the Court:

The Hearing Officer being the Competent Authority considered the objections made on behalf of the assesse concerned namely, the appellants herein and determined the annual valuation in respect of the specified quarter/period. In the event, the appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid revision of the annual valuation then the appellants should exhaust the alternative statutory remedy available under the statute by preferring appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority.

Issues: 1. Whether the Hearing Officer revised the annual valuation in respect of the property in question and served hearing notices inviting written objections in respect of the said annual valuation on the ground specifically mentioned in the said notices? 2. Whether the appellants herein duly understood the grounds on which annual valuation was revised in respect of the property in question for the specified quarter and accordingly, submitted written objections upon receiving the said hearing notices? 3. Whether the representative of the appellants also participated in the hearing before the Hearing Officer? 4. Whether before the Hearing Officer, it was specifically submitted on behalf of the appellants that the annual valuation should be determined on the basis of realised rent only and not on "realizable rent"? 5. Whether the Hearing Officer being the Competent Authority considered the objections made on behalf of the assesse concerned namely, the appellants herein and determined the annual valuation in respect of the specified quarter/period?

Ratio Decidendi: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, W.B. v. Dunlop India Ltd. & Others (supra) specifically held :-"Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely, matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters."

Final Decision: The appeals as well as the connected applications are dismissed without awarding any costs.