Courts uphold property tax assessments where procedural requirements under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act are met, and non-rebuttal of facts by the petitioner implies acceptance of the corporation's actions.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Both the above referred Letters Patent Appeals arising out of a common judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, are being heard and decided together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record, we may note that the only issue raised before us to challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition challenging the bills pertaining to property tax of the property in question, is the denial of opportunity of hearing resulting into violation of Rule-15(2) of the Rules framed under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we may note the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs-24 and 25 of the judgment impugned as under:-

“24. Moreover, from the rejoinder affidavit dated 17.03.2025 in Special Civil Application No.2692 of 2024, it is noticed that averments are made disputing service of notice. Allegations of false statements on oath by the respondent- corporation were made. In other words, facts stated on oath were disputed and thus at the most it may be a case of disputed questions of facts with regard to service of notice. Therefore, the levy of property tax in cases of petitioners in relation to their respective properties and consequential demand raised in the opinion of this court, are not without jurisdiction.

25. In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, since levy of property tax being mandatory and once the levy is made after framing the assessment during the official year, followed by entry in the assessment book and the assessment book to be made available to the person for inspection, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to quash and set-aside the bills issued for the years 2018 to 2024.”

3. We may further note that the stand taken by the respondent no.2 namely, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, Jamnagar in the affidavit-in-reply filed before the writ court wherein paragraphs- 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 [page-156 to 158], reads as under:-

“9. The respondent no.2 submits that all these properties were surveyed and measured, and thereafter, individual notices were served on all the units owners under the provision of Rule 15(2) of the Taxation Rules under Chapter-8 of the Guajrat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

10. The respondent no.2 submits that running units as well as residential units were sent notices through post while so far as the vacant plots are concerned, it was thought fit to serve the notices personally through staff members of Property Tax Department.

11. The respondent no.2 submits that the authority is having registers about the service of notices to the unit holders by way of two separate modes, as stated herein above. It is stated that the posts were sent through under the Postal Certificates which is so clear from the record.

12. The respondent no.3 submits that respondent no.2 craves leave to produce both the registers during the course of hearing of present Special Civil Application.

13. The respondent no.2 submits that not a single unit holder has submitted objections against individual notices issued under Rule 15(2) of the relevant Taxation Rules.

14. The respondent no.2 submits that, as there were no objections of this assessment notices issued under Rule 15(2), as referred to herein above, it was though fit to proceed further and issued bills for the taxation under the provisions of Rule 39. It is stated that identical procedure was followed by the administration and it has prepared two separate registers