The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with the procedures and provisions of law before issuing property tax bills, as provided under Rule 15(2) & 20(2) of the Taxation Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. This petition is part of group of petitions is with regard to the property tax bill issued by the respondent­ Corporation to the respective petitioners. As the issue raised by the parties is identical, though in different facts, at request of the parties concerned, these petitions are taken up for joint hearing and disposal.

3. This petition under Article­226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following prayers:

“A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order/s or Directions to quash and set aside the impugned special notices dated 4.2.2020 and 31.1.2020 as well as property tax bills dated NIL and 4.2.2020 at Annexure­A and consequently be pleased to direct the respondent to issue fresh property tax bills to the petitioner for his properties listed in para 2.1 for only period of 2019­20 considering Tokle Timber (Supra) and Narendra Jayantilal (Supra).

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that Usage Factor “NU3” i.e. multiplier of “1” is applicable instead of Usage Factor “NU2” i.e. multiplier of “3” in case of the petitioner’s properties listed at Sr. No.1 and 2 of para 2.1. Further, be pleased to declare that property tax in the form of “SWM User Charge” is not applicable in case of the petitioner’s properties as per resolution dated 18.2.2017.”

4. The petitioner is the owner and/or in possession of some properties situated within the limits of the Respondent ­ Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein prays before this Court to quash and set aside the Notices and Bills Dated 4.2.2020 and 31.1.2020 (which were handed over to the petitioner during March­2020) qua the Notices and Bills which were generated using wrong “Usage Factor” as well as generated with retrospective effect for the period prior to 1.4.2019 in the form of municipal taxes by the Respondent. It is pertinent to note that aforesaid properties are situated in sidasar village, which was within the limits of the Sidasar Gram Panchayat prior to 3.1.2015, is now within the limits of the respondent. Vide resolution dated 18.2.2017, had resolved property tax scheme as per below mentioned chart for five villages including Sidasar which were included in the limits of the respondent from 3.1.2015. It is the case that the respondent­ Corporation has issued the bill by levying the property tax with retrospective effect. It is the case that such retrospective effect is applied on the ground that subsequently from the year 2013, new policy for assessment on the basis of carpet area was introduced. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have been paying tax as per the bills raised and were never defaulters in the payment of taxes.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.10272 of 2021 dated 20­01­2022, wherein in the identical facts, the Court had quashed and set aside the bill and had directed the respondent Corporation to issue fresh bill in accordance with the law, giving an opportunity as provided.

6. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent­ Corporation has opposed the petition by referring to the Affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent­ Corporation and submitted that it was responsibility of the assessee to disclose to the Corporation with true and correct facts, as in the instant case, open plot which was also part of the Agreement with the G.S.T. Department, was excluded from tax for the period between 2009 to 2013, for which the petitioner was liable to make payment for the tax.

7. Learned Advocate for the respondent­ Corporation also submitted that the assessment was required to be made when the new method of assessment was introduced by adopting metho