RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RANCHI THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR Vs. D.A.V.PUBLIC SCHOOL AT SECTOR-III, DHURWA, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent no. 1 was served with a demand notice, directing it to deposit holding tax under Section 136 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951. The respondent aggrieved against the said demand approached this Court by filing writ petition being CWJC No. 3942 of 1993 (R), which was dismissed as withdrawn and was withdrawn because of the reason of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal. After withdrawing the writ petition on 18th January, 1994 the respondent preferred statutory appeal before the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 152 of the Patna Municipal Act, 1951. The appellate authority relying upon the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in one writ petition being CWJC.No.1594 of 1987(R), held that in view of the specific written agreement between the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Corporation cannot levy the holding tax upon the respondent on the ground that the building of the respondent is situated over the land of HEC for which the Municipal Corporation is charging consolidated holding tax from the HEC and, therefore, the respondent who has constructed building over the land of the HEC is not liable to pay holding tax. Being aggrieved against the above appellate order dated 1st December, 2001, this writ petition has been preferred by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that building of the respondent is situated on the land of HEC but since the building was constructed by the respondent, therefore, respondent is liable to pay holding tax.

(2.) However, we have perused the grounds taken by the respondent in the memo of appeal, copy of which has been placed at Annexure-6, and it appears that above was not the case of the respondent before the appellate authority that, since HEC is paying holding tax in terms of the agreement between the HEC and the Municipal Corporation and within land of HEC, the respondent has constructed it's building, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay the holding tax. The respondent's case before the appellate authority was only that before passing order of assessment of tax, the respondent was not given an opportunity of hearing and illegally accepted the report of valuation. It was further submitted that the respondent is run by a religious Society and is, therefore, entitled to exemption from the tax under the Act. Then, ultimately it has been prayed that order may be set aside with direction to the petitioner to re-fix the liability of the respondent.

(3.) It appears from the Scheme of the Patna Municipal Act; 1951, under which proceedings were initiated at the time of unified Bihar,' that Section 124 of the Act of 1951 provides the rate of tax and Section 132 provides the provision fixing liability upon the owner of the holding to pay the tax. Therefore, the holding tax is on holding and liability is of owner. Section 143 of the Act of 1951 answers the issue of the-case, where land belongs to one party and house is constructed by other party then the Chief Executive Officer may value such house and land together and may impose thereon one consolidated tax. Therefore, the situation which has been shown to us, is considered under sub section(1) of Section 143 of the Act of 1951, subject to proving the fact that the building on the land of the HEC was constructed by the respondent.