Point of Law: Assessment must be completed before close of the relevant official year and that once the official period is over, it is not open to the Commissioner to assess and levy the property tax for that year and in that view. It was observed that if the court dealing with the challenge to the assessment quashes the assessment, the Commissioner would not be able to re-assess and levy the property tax.

ORDER :

1. All the captioned six appeals preferred by the Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad are directed against judgment and orders passed by the Small Causes Court in respective Municipal Valuation Appeal filed by the same respondent herein. Since all the appeals have common thread of facts and the same issues of law involved, they were heard together to be treated simultaneously by this order.

1.1 Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Maulin Raval for Raval and Trivedi Associates with learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi for the appellant Corporation and learned advocate Mr. Kunjal Pandya for the respondent in all the appeals.

2. The first captioned First Appeal No. 3994 of 2019 is directed against judgment and order dated 30.1.2018 of the Small Causes Court No. 5, Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 30 of 2017 wherein the bill for property tax in relation to Appeal year 2008-2009 was under challenge. In all other First Appeals, similar orders of even date passed by the Small Causes Court in respect of Appeal Year 2009-2010, 2006-2007, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2007-2008, are subject matter of challenge.

3. All these Municipal Valuation Appeals culminating into the judgment and orders impugned in the different First Appeals as above, were preferred by the respondent Navgujarat Education Trust through its Managing Trustee in respect of the assessment fixed by the appellant Corporation in respect of the premises situated at Ahmedabad ward Usmanpura Gam bearing tenement No. 0520/09/0393/0001/F contending that the respondent was a public charitable trust registered on 9.10.1964, engaged in educational activities without any object of profit making, therefore liable to exemption from the taxes.

3.1 In the first captioned appeal, it was submitted that its premises was wrongly assessed to tax. It claimed that bill showing area of 3438 square meters was required to be issued as was issued in the earlier years. It was claimed that it being charitable trust not engaged in profit making or business activities, was entitled to exemption from general tax and education cess. It prayed before the Small Causes court to make assessment of the premises on the basis of measurement of 3438 sq. mtrs. and location factor F/1 previous Class-B.

3.2 The Corporation contested the respective Municipal Appeals by filling reply at Exh.9 denying the case of the trust. It was contended that the appeals were not maintainable as were preferred against the bill and no cause of action had arisen. It was further contended that the principles of assessment applicable prior to 2001 would not apply as new formula had replaced the old. It was the contention that assessment of the premises of the trust was properly made under section 454 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, and the rules made thereunder.

3.3 The Small Cause Court allowed all the Valuation Appeals setting at naught the assessment and directed to issue bill for the relevant Appeal Year giving exemption to the appellant trust from education cess and general tax. It further required the Corporation to recover the tax as per area of 3438 sq. mtrs. and as per the location factor F/1, previous Class-B. The Corporation was required to refund the excess amount of tax if any paid by the assessee trust.

3.4 In other words, the Small Causes Court in all the Valuation Appeals set aside the assessment of tax done by the Corporation and directed to give exemption from tax liability. In setting aside the assessment, the Small Causes Court supplied the following reasons common to all orders:

“.....but respondent has not produced any documentary evidence to show that in the new B.P.M.C. Act there is no exemption to the education trust from general tax and education cess. As against this, the appellant has produced the certificated copy of the judgment at mark 4/16 in M.V.A. No. 762 of 2002 dated 12.1.2006 for the year 2001-02 of this court in which direction is given to the respondent to give