( 1 ) MR. PRASHANT G. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and mr. J. R. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the respondents, are finally heard.

( 2 ) PRESENT is a petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India, challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of Order dated 30th January, 2003 and Order dated 13th march, 2003, so also Notice No. 9904 issued by the respondents, requiring the petitioners to pay the total tax of Rs. 2,29,437/-and Rs. 10/- as notice charges.

( 3 ) THE facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners claim themselves to be a Public Charitable Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, having registration No. E-840 dated 16th April, 1990. According to the petitioners, all the Trustees of the said Trust are citizens of india and they are entitled to enforcement of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, they being a registered Public Charitable trust, they have goals and objects and for providing medical assistance to the general public, they had constructed a hospital at Jamnagar. According to them, the Trust is carrying its public activities and is providing many benefits to the general public in the form of a charitable institution. According to them, the Trust made an application under Section-12 (A) (a) of the Income Tax Act and the Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot had given a Certificate under Section-80 (G) (5) of the Income Tax Act on 4th June, 2001. The petitioners submit that in accordance with Section-132 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (Act no. LIX of 1949) [for short "the Act"], the Corporation issued a notice to them for their assessment. A copy of the notice has been annexed with the reply filed by the Corporation. It is filed at Annexure-R1. The Trust filed its reply on 29th July, 2002 (Annexure-R/2 to the reply of the Corporation ). The present trust clearly stated that their institution is registered at serial No. E-840 on 16th April, 1990 in the Office of the commissioner as a Charitable Trust and for the purposes of carrying out the goals of the Trust, they have raised such construction of the building. It appears that after such reply was filed, final order came to be passed on 25th October, 2002 and the present petitioners were held liable to pay the tax.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order, rejecting their submissions, is bad firstly, because no hearing was afforded to them, secondly, because no reasons are given in the order and, thirdly, because Section-132 of the Act has an inbuilt deeming fiction that tax would not be leviable against the buildings and lands or portions thereof solely occupied and used for public worship or for a public charitable purpose. His submission, in fact, is that by Order dated 30th January, 2003, the petitioners exemption application was rejected and the petitioners application dated 10th March, 2003, requesting for reconsideration, was again rejected on 13th March, 2003. He submits that the order passed by the authority deserves to be set aside and the petitioners be held entitled to exemption.

( 5 ) MR. J. R. NANAVATI, learned Counsel for the respondents, with his usual vehemence, submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was given, there are no requirement of law for providing reasons while rejecting the objection and imposing tax or holding particular person/property liable for tax. For Section-132 of the Act and its deeming fiction, it is submitted that the deeming fiction would be applicable in case where the authority is satisfied that the property falls within Clause- (b) of sub. Section- (1) of Section-132 of the Act.

( 6 ) TRUE it is, that Section-132 of the Act does not speak of providing an opportunity of hearing, but, in a case where the order proposed to be passed would lead to civil consequences and would hold a particular person liable to pay