IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of pro rata apportionment of tax liability and the illegality of demanding property tax twice for the same period and property.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioners in the present case have challenged an order passed by the Assessor-Collector (North), Kolkata Municipal Corporation, dated 16.11.2021. He has prayed for the relief, inter alia, that the said order may be directed to be set aside, that the Court may direct for setting aside the impugned Letter of Intimation (LoI) dated 5.4.2021. His further prayer is for directing the respondent-Corporation to refund excess payment of Rs.28,134.50 to the writ petitioner and other ancillary orders.

2. This case has a long standing history. The premises with regard to which the disputed tax liability has arisen is no.1/1, Hem Kar Lane, Kolkata- 700 005. The petitioner is a purchaser of the portion of the property from one of the co-sharers, by dint of duly executed registered deed of conveyance dated 18.9.1996. Since after purchase the writ petitioners have duly mutated their names with respect to the proportionate share of purchased property, have been allotted assessee number and have been regularly remitting municipal taxes, without default.

3. They have, however, become aggrieved upon receipt of Letter of Intimation (LoI) dated 5.4.2021 sent by the respondent Corporation allegedly raising arbitrary and whimsical claim of property tax due, to the tune of Rs.2,67,073/- including interests and penalty.

4. The grievance of the writ petitioners was culminated into filing by them a writ petition being WPO/591/2021. An order dated 10.9.2021 of the Court was passed to dispose of the said writ petition of the present petitioners. The Court has recorded that “However, the Court finds that there are periods and bills which are overlapping and which have also been paid, as prima facie appears from the records, before the mutation was completed.” The court has finally directed the Assessor-Collector (North) to give the writ petitioners an opportunity of hearing regarding their objections/ representation submitted earlier and dispose of the prayer in the said representation.

5. The resultant order is that dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Assessor-Collector (North) which is impugned in the present case.

6. The other facts relevant for proper adjudication of this case is that the said premises no.1/1, Hem Kar Lane, Kolkata was previously recorded in the name of Sri Bhupendra Chandra Kar and others. Sri Shyamal Kishore Ghosh has been a purchaser of the Southern portion of the said property by dint of a conveyance deed dated 13.5.2005. As stated earlier, the writ petitioners have purchased the Northern portion of the said property previous to the same i.e., on 18.9.1996.

7. On the prayer made by said Sri Shyamal Kishore Ghosh, the respondent Corporation, while in the process of separation of the property, accepted deposit of Rs.65,000/- from said Sri Shyamal Kishore Ghosh on account of unpaid tax, in the suspense account, against the original assessee number (mother). The concerned authority in the said impugned order dated 16.11.2021 has mentioned the same amount of Rs.65,000/- which has been deposited by said Sri Shyamal Kishore Ghosh, to have been made towards pro rata liability of mother’s outstanding dues. This is an important observation of the said concerned authority in the impugned order, the relevance of which shall be discussed later in this judgment.

8. Name of Sri Shyamal Kishore Ghosh was mutated and the portion of the property purchased by him was allotted a new premises No.1/1A, Hem Kar Lane, Kolkata with a separate assessee number (Child) to him.

9. In the said order impugned in this writ petition, the concerned authority has further stated that at the time of generating child assessee number on separation, mother’s outstanding dues of the entire premises was proportionately divided and vested upon the child assessee in accordance with its pro rata share of tax.

10. The writ petitioners have applied for mutation of their part of property on the Northern side of the premises on 20.03.2017. The petitioners were invited to