IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that amendments to property tax assessments must adhere to statutory provisions and procedural fairness, and that jurisdictional errors render assessments void.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus to command the municipal authorities to set aside the Letter of Intimation dated 04.12.2020; to implement the order dated 18.02.1998 and to reevaluate the correct property tax.

2. Kesoram Textile Mills (for short “Kesoram”)/the writ petitioner claims to be the owner of two premises being Nos. C2 and S-1 Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700024. The said properties were within the jurisdiction of the then Garden Reach Municipality. Garden Reach Municipality subsequently merged with Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short “KMC”) on and from January, 1984.

3. The concerned Hearing Officer of KMC passed an order dated 18.02.1998 determining the Annual Valuation of the aforesaid holdings for the period 1983-84. Thereafter, the Annual Valuation of the aforesaid holdings was amended under Section 192(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980 (for short “the 1980 Act”) with effect from 1st Quarter 1984-85 by an order dated 02.03.2000.

4. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition challenged the jurisdiction of the authority under the 1980 Act to assess the valuation of holdings of Kesoram for the period 1983-84 as per the provisions of the 1980 Act in utter disregard of Section 635A of the said Act which provides that assessment for such buildings for any period prior to 1st April, 1984 shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (for short “the 1932 Act”). He further contended that amendment of valuation in exercise of power under Section 192 was also without jurisdiction as the same was given retrospective effect without any case of fraud etc being made out. Mr. Gupta further submitted that since the first assessment after the area within which the said holdings are situated are included within the limits of Kolkata, was without jurisdiction, the same is nullity and as such all subsequent assessments are nullity. Mr. Gupta placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported at AIR (2004) SC 2836 in support of his contention that an order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. He submitted that even while applying the Clause 11 of the Circular of 1986 the authorities did not assess the valuation under Section 174(4A) of the 1980 Act.

5. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel representing KMC raised an objection against maintainability of this writ petition on two fold grounds. Firstly, that the writ petitioner is in effect challenging the assessment made in the year 2000 by filing a writ petition in the year 2021 and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Secondly, the order of assessment is an appealable one and the appeal lies before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal. He submitted that the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass such statutory appellate remedy which is not only an efficacious one but effective as well. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision in the case of A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhawani and Anr. reported at AIR 1961 SC 1506. By referring to the reliefs claimed, Mr. Ghosh submitted that only the Letter(s) of Intimation (for short “LOI”) and not the assessment. Orders are under challenge in this writ petition and, therefore, this Court should not enter into the merits of the Assessment Order in this writ petition. Mr. Ghosh, however submitted that since the valuation arrived at by order dated 18.02.1998 was erroneous, such valuation was amended in exercise of powers under Section 192 of the 1980 Act.

6. In response to the objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, Mr. Gupta placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. reported at (