The main legal point established in the judgment is that property tax demands must be in accordance with the law and supported by proper procedures, including the requirement of proper notice for changing the Annual Letting Value.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners for seeking following reliefs :

(A) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus Or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside demand for property tax as contained in bill no.233844 (Annexure-A) and be further pleased to declare that no such retrospective claim for property tax is tenable under the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949;

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent from taking any coercive steps including sealing of the retail outlet based on the demand for property tax under invoice No.2338844 dated 24.12.2019;

(C) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper.

(D) Cost of the petition be directed against the respondent.”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ajay R. Mehta for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya for the respondent.

3. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule of behalf of respective parties.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta for the petitioners has submitted that the property tax bill, issued on 10.06.2019 for the year 2019-20 by the respondent – Corporation, where the name of the person, who is liable to pay tax is shown as Mrudulaben Nandkumar Gandhi for the premises in question being Ward No.10 situated at Race Course Circle, Opposite Natubhai Centre, Vadadara. In that bill, the name of the occupant is shown as BPCL - Dealer Chetak Nandkumar Gandhi. He has pointed out from the said bill that bill amount of Rs.2,08,574/- is raised for the year 2019-20 and in column “B”, where the details of outstanding amount is required to be mentioned but nothing is mentioned there. Further, he has drawn the attention of this Court towards bill of the year 2018-19 where also, the bill amount of Rs.2,08,574/- is raised but nothing is shown towards the previous outstanding amount.

4.2 Thereafter, on 24.12.2019, six months after issuance of last bill, new bill dated 24.12.2019 is issued for the period from 13.01.2005 to 31.03.2020 by claiming the amount of Rs.22,61,468/-. He has submitted that respondent - Corporation has no reason to ask for the said amount more particularly when such demand is against the provisions of law.

4.3 He has further submitted that such tax bill, claiming arrears for 15 years, has been raised by the Authority without any justification. He has submitted that when the petitioner had asked for the copy of notice that may have been issued under Clause 15(2) & 20(2) of Chapter VIII of Schedule A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 along with Annual Letting Value calculation sheet under Section 2 of the Act, however, no such details/documents were furnished. He has further submitted that the action of the respondent in revising Annual Letting Value retrospectively, that too from the year 2005 is totally illegal and contrary to the statutory rules.

4.4 He has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sushilaben Veljibhai Shah Versus Jamnagar Municipal Corporation rendered in the Special Civil Application No.8323 of 2019 dated 05.03.2020, more particular para 6.3 and has submitted that the demand which is raised by the respondent - Corporation by way impugned bill is bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.

5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the respondent No.1 has drawn the attention to this Court towards various Rules framed which is known as taxation Rules under the Act. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards Rules 5 & 21 of the Act, which read as under :

“Rule 5: Constitution of Corporation:-

(1) Every Corporation shall, by the name of “The Municipal Corporation of the City of .................”, be a body corporate and have perpetual succession and a common sea