R. K. ABIHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the bills at annexures "d, E and F" to the petition issued by the Municipal Corporation under Rule 39 of Chapter VIII of schedule-A to the Bombay Provincial municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

( 2 ) UNDER these three bills a demand was made for the municipal taxes for the period from 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1983, 1- 10-1980 to 31-3-1983 and 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 respectively for the property in question.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner they have already paid taxes to the Corporation upto 31-3-1983 on the basis of assessment which prevailed during that period. However, special notices were issued on the petitioner as per Annexure "a" to the petition in June 1983 under Rule 15 (2) for increase in the rateable value of the premises as stated in the notices. The corporation had by its order dated 5-3- 1984 informed the petitioner that the annual rateable value was revised to Rs. 1,79,244/- for the period between 1-2-79 to 31-3-1980. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that increase in the annual letting value which was retrospectively made was illegal and without any authority of law. It is on the other hand contended on behalf of the Corporation that the Appellate Officer of the Corporation had passed the order for revised rateable value after giving due hearing to the petitioner and the bills have been duly issued on the basis of a speaking order revising annual letting value.

( 4 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the corporation could have retrospectively revised the annual letting value and demanded taxes on the basis of revised rateable value made on 5-3-1984 for the year ending 31-3-1983.

( 5 ) UNDER Rule 9 of the said Rules assessment Book which is required to be kept by the Commissioner has to contain the entries mentioned therein every official year. Accordingly rateable value at item No. (b) determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules, is required to be entered in the assessment Book every official year. Under Rule 21b it is only when the said entry cannot be made in the- Assessment book on account of any order of a Court or any other competent authority, the levy, collection or recovery of tax made on the basis of an entry made after expiry of the order cannot be questioned. The procedure foor (sic.) assessment of levy set out in the provisions of the Rules is required to be complied with before expiry of the official (sic.) and no assessment can be made after the official year. This is clear from reading of Rules, 9, 17 and 21 and 21b of the said rules. Rule 21b accepts by necessary implication that having regard to the scheme of the Corporation Act and the rules, the assessment of property tax for any particular official year must be completed before the expiry of official year, by indicating exception that for any case falling within 21b, assessment book may be prepared and completed even after expiry of the official year. The requirement that assessment must be completed before the close of the official year is mandatory requirement only subject to express provision in Rule 21b and once the official year has expired it would not be open to the Commissioner to assess and levy property tax. This position of law is settled in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. Municipal corporation for City of Ahmedabad and ors. reported in 1993 (2) G. L. H. 897 and the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal corporation of City of Ahmedabad v. Keshav, reported in VI G. L. R. 228.

( 6 ) IN view of the settled legal position the impugned bills which were issued on the basis of rateable value revised on 5-3- 1984 for the earlier years ending 31-3- 1983 were illegal and unauthorised. The petitioner had already paid the taxes to the Corporation on the basis of the assessment prevailed during those years and by subsequent revision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document