- (1.) The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Market Company Ltd. hereinafter called 'the Company' -constructed on certain plots owned by it, two houses - each house consisting of a ground floor, intended to be used as shops and an upper floor, intended to be used for residential purposes. For the use of the occupation of the shops, 20 flush lavatories with underground sewers connected with the drainage system of the Nagpur Corporation were constructed by the Company. The Corporation of Nagpur had also erected a municipal public water Standard within 200 yards of the houses. Among the taxes levied by the Municipal Corporation under S. 114 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 -hereinafter called 'the Act' - were the conservancy tax and the water rate which under the rules applicable thereto were leviable as rates on the annual letting value of buildings and lands within the Corporation areas. It is common ground that the shops which in the aggregate number 201, are occupied by shop keepers under a scheme under which on payment of stipulated amounts, the occupants will be full owners of the shops, and on the ability of all the occupants being discharged the Company will be dissolved. However the scheme under which this arrangement was made has not been placed before us and it is not possible on the material before us to ascertain what the true relation between the shop-keepers and the Company is.
(2.) For the year 1953-54 the Corporation of Nagpur proposed to assess the shopkeepers numbering one hundred and fifty five who occupied the shops built by the Company to private conservancy tax, water rate and property tax on each shop as a separate unit of assessment, and assessment notices in that behalf were issued to the Managing Director of the Company on September 26, 1953. The Company requested the Corporation by letter dated September 30, 1953 that the assessment notices be served on the 'individual shopkeepers of respective shops regarding the assessment made by the Corporation. The Corporation thereupon served the individual shop-keepers with notices of assessment. 120 out of 155 shop-keepers served with the notices of assessment preferred objections submitting inter alia that the taxes could be assessed only on the Company These objections were heard before the Objection Officer appointed by the Corporation. The Managing Director of the Company and a representative of the shopkeepers submitted their respective cases on behalf of the Company and the shop-keepers. By his order dated April 19, 1954 the Objection officer held that the Company be treated as owner of the houses and the shop-keepers as occupants and that the demand for tax be 'primarily made from the occupants' : No proceedings challenging this order were initiated by the shop keepers or the Company and the assessment list was authenticated as required by the relevant rules. The Corporation thereafter served demand notices upon the shop-keepers calling upon them to pay the taxes due by them pursuant to the assessment list.
(3.) On December 16, 1954 some of the occupants appealed to the Chief Executive Officer under S. 387 of the Act challenging the validity of the assessment. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer rejected the appeals against the order passed by the Objection Officer to the Chief Executive Officer as incompetent and observed that in any event the appeals which were not presented within the period of limitation prescribed by S.379 of the Act, were barred. The shop-keepers and the Company preferred separate appeals to the District Judge, Nagpur, against the order of the objection officer. The District Judge by his order dated October 28, 1955 held that the appeals were barred by the law of limitation and the appellants before him had made out no ground for condonation of delay. The shop-keepers again moved the Chief Executive Officer to reconsider the order of assessment of tax. That Officer by his order dated April 18, 1956 held that even though the order passed by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer dismissing 'the previously filed appeals' as not maintainable, and observing that the proper remedy of the shop-keepers and the Company aggrieved was an appeal under S. 130 of the Act was erroneous, the appeals before him being barred by the law of limitation, he was unable to grant any redress to the appellants. The Chief Executive Officer also opined that the houses having been divided into separate shops and allotted to the Company's share-holders who carried on their business independently and each such allotee having a separate source of income within the meaning of R. 10 (a) of the assessment rules, the Objection Officer was right in holding that each shop be treated as an independent unit, and be separately assessed for conservancy cess and water rate.;