1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked questioning the notification dated 8-9-2016 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai by which property tax has been directed to be enhanced on the basis of memo/order issued by the State Government under Section 133-B of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956') on 31-8-2015. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dated 18-10-2016 by which the Corporation has directed the petitioner to submit revised return as per the resolution dated 8-9-2016.

2. The petitioner, which is a Government Company, filed self-assessment assessing its property tax in the year 2016-17 with rebate of 5%. Thereafter, on 8-9-2016, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, on the basis of memo dated 31-8-2015 enhanced the property tax with effect from assessment year 2016-17 treating the memo dated 31-8-2015 to be the order of the State Government. Thus, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notification dated 8-9-2016 as well as the order dated 18-10-2016 on the ground that the memo dated 31-8-2015 is not an order at all, it is only a notice inviting objections from the Corporation and local public under Section 133-B of the Act of 1956 and, therefore, revision of annual letting value as well as enhancing property tax on the basis of memo dated 31-8-2015 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. Therefore, the notification dated 8-9-2016 be quashed and the consequential order dated 18-10-2016 be also quashed.

3. Return has been filed by the State / respondent No.1 stating inter alia that no relief has been sought against the State and the State Government while exercising powers under Section 133-B of the Act of 1956 has only issued notices to the Corporation and local public in the prescribed manner for imposition of property tax. It is further stated that all the averments relate to respondents No.2 and 3 for which they have filed separate return.

4. Respondents No.2 and 3 – Municipal Corporation, Bhilai has filed its separate return stating inter alia that pursuant to the memo dated 31-8-2015, the Corporation has invited objections from general public and objections were sent to the State Government for its proper disposal and in pursuance of the notification dated 31-8-2015 and the schedule appended thereto, the Municipal Corporation issued notification dated 8-9-2016 whereby new annual letting value has been fixed by the Corporation and thereafter, it has been informed to general public by publication through notification dated 8-9-2016. It has also been pleaded that since the petitioner has not submitted self-assessment as per the notification dated 8-9-2016 and the petitioner paid property tax on the basis of notification issued in the year 2011-12 and after the year 2012, notification dated 8-9-2016 has been issued, therefore, the petitioner is required to make disclosure in accordance with the notification dated 8-9-2016. The petitioner's appeal has already been dismissed and property tax enhanced with effect from 1-4-2016 is strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner has already made self-assessment on the basis of rates notified on 8-9-2016 and deposited the property tax, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai has passed the impugned order relying upon the notification dated 31-8-2015 allegedly passed under Section 133-B of the Act of 1956, whereas notification dated 31-8-2015 is only a notice issued for passing order under Section 133-B of the Act of 1956 for hearing the person mentioned therein. In fact, no order under Section 133-B of the Act of 1956 has been passed by the State Government after hearing