JUDGMENT :

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

2. These 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. Facts are recorded from the lead petition being Special Civil Application No.2853 of 2022.

3. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed for quashing and setting aside the assessment / impugned property tax bill No.0285366 dated 23-03-2021 and Bill No.0234023 dated 13-10-2021.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that issuance of the property tax bill and the demand notice at Annexure-A and Annexure-B are in violation of Rule-15( 2), 20(2) and 41 of the Rules under the G.P.M.C. Act. 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. In the present case, the property in question was transferred to the petitioner under sale-deed dated 26121988 and thereafter, the petitioner has become owner of the property under the registered sale-deed dated 10-11-2020 and the entire property which included constructed portion and open land, has been given on rent to the G.S.T. Department.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that bill dated 23-03-2021 for the first time was issued by the respondent-Corporation to the tune of Rs.10,42,861/- for the part of the plot being plot no.76-B1 and another bifurcated bill for the current year being 2020-2021 for an amount of Rs.1,34,563/, meaning thereby for the period between 2013 to 2020, the tax levied was to the tune of Rs.9,08,298/-.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the bills in question at Annexure-A, which is dated 23-03-2021, wherein the bill is shown to be covering two parts, outstanding for the period between April-2013 to March-2020, for which an amount of Rs.9,08,298/is shown to be outstanding. It is submitted that this portion of the bill also included an amount of Rs.9,462/- towards the streetlight tax. According to the petitioners, issue pertaining to the streetlight tax was introduced only in the year 2020, wherein the Government Resolution dated 31-03-2020 has permitted levy of streetlight tax so far as the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation is concerned. Despite this, for the whole period from 2013, the component of streetlight tax is also introduced in the bill of the petitioner. This is only one anomaly that the petitioner has pointed out. Even otherwise according to the petitioner, the issuance of demand notice and the bills simultaneously, as is indicated at Annexure-A, is not in accordance with the law, as there is a period of 15 days provided for in the demand notice, which in the impugned notice, does not appear to be given to the petitioner at all.

8. 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 20-01-2022, 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.

9. 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