Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.J. VAZIFDAR & DEEPAK SIBAL, JJ.
M/s Avon Steel Industries (P) Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 16836 of 2016
Decided On : 03-10-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. T.S. Ratta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Addl. A.G., Punjab with Mr. Sunil Kumar Vashisht, Punjab, Mr. Ashok Kumar Bazaz, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Property Tax – For entertaining of an appeal only property tax due is to be deposited and not the entire amount as mentioned in notice which includes penalty
Headnote:Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, S.112-C(2) – Appeal – Property Tax – For entertaining of an appeal only property tax due is to be deposited and not the entire amount as mentioned in notice which includes penalty. (Paras 15 & 16)
It can thus be seen that the Act does not define tax or penalty but makes a clear distinction between both – In Sections 138 and 147 (b) of the Act, wherever the legislature intended to give a wider meaning to the amount due or payable, it has done so – If in a particular Section, the meaning of tax was to include penalty, an explanation to that effect has been given in the Section itself, as has been done in Section 100 – A plain reading of Section 112-C(2) provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless the amount of tax is paid – It does not say unless tax and penalty is paid or total amount due is paid or any amount on account of tax is paid – The section also does not contain an explanation which provides that tax would include penalty – If the plea raised on behalf of the respondent Corporation is to be accepted, then we would have to necessarily add to Section 112-C(2) either of the afore-referred phrases – The plain meaning of Section 112-C(2) being unambiguous, leading to no absurdity, we are not inclined to do so. (Paras 15 & 16)
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.
1. The petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing iron and steel in its industrial unit in Industrial Focal Point, Phase VIII, Village Mangli Nichi, District Ludhiana. The manufacturing unit is over an area measuring 96,800 sq. yds., with a covered area of 3,44,800 sq. feet. The petitioner, on 10.12.2013, for the property referred to above, filed its property tax return for the year 2013-14 on a self-assessment basis. The petitioner calculated the property tax on the basis of rates specified by the Collector. The respondent Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (for short – the Corporation) found the return to be under-valued, and therefore, served upon the petitioner a notice to that effect. The value, on which, the property tax, according to the respondent Corporation, should have been paid by the petitioner, was also mentioned in the notice. The petitioner responded to the said notice through a detailed representation, in which the valuation of the property, on the basis of which, the petitioner had filed its return on 10.12.2013, was reiterated. Opportunity of hearing was granted by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner, which was availed. However, through an order dated 22.03.2016, the plea of the petitioner was rejected and accordingly, a demand of Rs. 56,54,790/- was raised. A perusal of this order shows that out of the raised demand, Rs. 28,27,395/- were payable towards tax and Rs. 28,27,395/- towards penalty.
2. Aggrieved by the above demand, the petitioner challenged the same by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation. Since along with the appeal, no part of the disputed demand had been deposited, the appeal was not entertained as according to the Commissioner, filing of the due demand along with the appeal was a pre-requisite. The dismissal of the petitioner's appeal led to the passing of the order dated 06.07.2016, through which the petitioner was asked to deposit his dues, as demanded through order dated 22.03.2016 within seven days, or else, the property of the petitioner would be sealed and then auctioned. Aggrieved by the above action, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court through C.W.P. No. 13964 of 2016, which, through order dated 05.08.2016, was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause, with better particulars. As per the liberty granted, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Though in the present petition, quashing of the afore-referred orders dated 22.03.2016, 30.05.2016 and 06.07.2016 is prayed for, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his prayer for seeking quashing of the order dated 30.05.2016 and 06.07.2016 and for issuance of a direction to the respondent Corporation to entertain the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 22.03.2016, on deposit of only the due tax and without insistence on the payment of the imposed penalty, as according to him, payment of tax was the only requirement for entertaining the appeal.
4. Section 90(1)(a) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short – the Act), Act enables the Corporation to levy taxes on lands and buildings. Section 90(3) provides that the taxes shall be levied at such rates as may, from time to time, be specified by the Government. Under Section 90(3-A) that subject to any general or special orders, which may be passed by the Government and to the rules, a Corporation may, from time to time, impose in the whole or any part of the City, a tax payable by the owner on building and land, to be calculated under Section 97.
5. Section 90(1)(a), Section 90(3) and Section 90(3-A) of the Act (without its proviso as the same is not relevant) read as under :-
“90. Taxes to be imposed by Corporation under this Act and arrangement of certain taxes collected by Government – (1) The Corporation shall, for the purposes of this Act, levy the foll
