Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY, JJ.
Swapan Kumar Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors – Respondents
FMA 657 OF 2022
Decided on : 21-02-2024
KMC - Property Tax Dispute - KMC Act, 1980, Section 184(3)/184(4) - The court discussed the deeming provision in Section 184 of the KMC Act, emphasizing the need for actual notice of proceedings to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The court held that the order confirming the enhanced valuation was void due to lack of notice to the appellant. The court also set aside the demand for property tax, finding no outstanding amount due based on the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by KMC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a property owner, challenged the proposed annual valuations and raised grievances regarding the lack of notice for hearings and demands for property tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not served with a notice of the hearing, rendering the order confirming the enhanced valuation void. The court also set aside the demand for property tax, finding no outstanding amount due based on the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by KMC.
Issues: The issues included the lack of notice for hearings and demands for property tax, which were resolved in favor of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for actual notice of proceedings to adhere to the principles of natural justice and set aside the order confirming the enhanced valuation due to lack of notice. The court also set aside the demand for property tax based on the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by KMC.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order were set aside, and the demand for property tax was disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Arijit Banerjee, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated March 8, 2022, whereby the appellant’s writ petition being WPA 1139 of 2016 was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court.
Case of the appellant:-
2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the 3/4th owner of premises no. 41/1, Chand Mohammad Road, Kolkata – 700 092, situated within the territorial limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’). KMC assessed the annual valuation of the appellant’s portion of the concerned building at Rs. 1,18,120/- with effect from 4th quarter of 2000-2001. The annual valuation was however reduced to Rs. 64,580/-.
3. KMC again proposed to assess the annual valuation of the appellant’s portion of the building at Rs. 1,28,520/- with effect from 2nd quarter of 2001-2002. Ultimately, such annual valuation was finalised at Rs. 54,000/-.
4. With effect from the 4th quarter of 2006-07, KMC proposed annual valuation of the appellant’s portion of the premises in question at Rs. 71,040/-, by a notice dated June 21, 2011. By another notice dated June 21, 2011, KMC proposed annual valuation of Rs. 1,70, 690/- with effect from the 3rd quarter of 2010-11. By both the said notices, the appellant was informed that hearing under Sections 184(3)/184(4) of the KMC Act, 1980, would be held on July 20, 2011.
5. By a letter dated July 20, 2011, the appellant objected to the proposed annual valuations and sought adjournment of the hearing fixed on that date. Such adjournment was granted.
6. The appellant did not receive any further notice of hearing.
7. KMC started raising property tax bills on the basis of the proposed enhance annual valuations for the period from the 4th quarter of 2006-07 and the 3rd quarter of 2010-11 as stated above. The appellant came to know that a hearing had been fixed on August 29, 2011, and the proposed annual valuation for those periods had been confirmed ex parte at such hearing.
8. The appellant approached a learned Judge of this Court by filing WP No. 5177(W) of 2015 with the grievance that no opportunity of hearing was given to him by KMC, before confirming the proposed enhanced annual valuations for the aforesaid two periods and also complaining of a letter of intimation dated October 21, 2014, being issued by KMC showing certain paid bills as unpaid/outstanding. That writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated June 3, 2015, with a direction on the Assessor-Collector (Tolley Tax), KMC, to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner by passing a reasoned order within a stipulated period of time.
9. Pursuant to such order, the Assessor-Collector (Tolley Tax) passed an order dated July 24, 2015, directing the Assistant Assessor-Collector and the Deputy Assessor-Collector to prepare a report on the point of issuance of hearing notice to the petitioner before confirming the proposed annual valuations for the aforesaid two periods. It was recorded in the order that if written notice was not given to the writ petitioner, “the matter will be placed before appropriate authority for consideration whether the petitioner will be given another opportunity of hearing.”
10. A report was submitted to the Assessor-Collector by the Assistant Assessor-Collector through the Deputy Assessor-Collector. Having considered such report, the Assessor Collector passed an order on September 29, 2015, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-
The deeming provision in Section 184 of the KMC Act must be strictly construed, and actual notice of proceedings is necessary to adhere to the principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with statutory provisions can lead to the setting aside of assessment orders....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of annual valuation by the petitioners and their authorized representative, followed by a request for further waiver, indicated....
Assessment orders deemed invalid due to lack of reasons and failure to adhere to mandatory notice periods.
The court affirmed that amendments to property tax assessments must adhere to statutory provisions and procedural fairness, and that jurisdictional errors render assessments void.
Assessments for property tax must be based on reasonable rent expectation, not merely actual rent received, to avoid jurisdictional errors.
Municipal authority must act within jurisdiction and statutory mandates during property valuation revisions; arbitrary actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.
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
