SRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI Vs. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM
LAWS(SC)-1994-10-66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on October 05,1994

SRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI Appellant
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KIRPAL SINGH SURJEET SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1995-4-47] [REFERRED]
SALES TAX OFFICER VS. BYFORD MOTORS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1995-7-109] [REFERRED]
AJAY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1998-4-84] [REFERRED]
D R AGGARWAL VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-1998-9-77] [REFERRED]
PARBAT SINGH ALIAS PARTAP SINGH VS. STATE OF DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(DLH)-2001-5-49] [REFERRED]
B R NANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-201] [REFERRED]
ANANT VERINDER SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2003-9-95] [REFERRED 6.]
RAMDITTI JIWANDARAM NARANG PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2004-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
BASU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
BHOPAL SINGH RANA VS. D I O S BIJNOR [LAWS(ALL)-1996-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. BALBIR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2007-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
AGARAPU NIRMALA VS. VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
RAJATHA ENTERPRISES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1996-4-1] [FOLLOW ON : JT 1994(6) SC 496,FOLL.; 5.]
CONVENER SAMPANGIRAMASWAMY TEMPLE VS. B S RAGHAVACHAR [LAWS(KAR)-2000-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
NOORSAB ALIAS NOOR AHMED S O KUTHUBUDDIN THABBAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2000-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
State Bank of India VS. S M Oil Extraction Pvt Ltd [LAWS(CAL)-1999-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GULATI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2003-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
AGARIKA SEVA TRUST VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
RAJSHEKER R NADGOUD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION VS. D V RAGHURAM [LAWS(KAR)-2004-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
CORE CERAMICS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2008-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD [LAWS(SC)-1995-5-66] [REFERRED TO]
KOLI CHUNILAL SAVJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1999-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA AUTOMOBILES 1960 LIMITED VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2002-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER VS. GRIHA YAJAMANULA SAMKHYA [LAWS(SC)-2001-5-72] [REFERRED]
INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-1996-7-15] [REFERRED]
J R SOOD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1998-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
K KRISHNAN VS. T T DEVASTHANAMS [LAWS(APH)-1995-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAJETI VEERABHADRARAO VS. PITHAPURAM MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(APH)-2007-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. BHARAT HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2004-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
SIVABUSHANAM ARAMAL VS. COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1995-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM DISTRICT TRIVANDRUM VS. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM [LAWS(KER)-1997-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
S BHYRAPPA VS. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION [LAWS(KAR)-2012-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM DISTRICT TRIVANDRUM VS. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM TRIVANDRUM [LAWS(KER)-2000-4-8] [REFERRED]
N Chelliah Servai VS. Executive Authority Thirupattur Town Panchayat Office [LAWS(MAD)-2002-8-109] [RELIED ON]
T R KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2002-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS LOTU BHIRUD VS. PACHORA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-1998-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
S Ramathilagam VS. Srivilliputtur Municipality [LAWS(MAD)-2003-9-105] [REFERRED TO]
DALAMAL TOWER PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOC LTD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPN OF BRIHAN MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI VS. DALAMAL TOWER PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI A STATUTORY CORPORATION CONSTITUTED VS. DALAMAL TOWER PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-191] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI VS. DALAMAL TOWER PREMISES [LAWS(BOM)-2011-9-83] [REFERRED]
K A AROKKIAM VS. DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-628] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. RANJITSINH GORDHANDAS [LAWS(BOM)-1998-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
JAINTI PARSHAD JAIN VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE FEROZEPORE [LAWS(P&H)-1997-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
SOCIAL ACTION FOR RELIEF VS. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(PAT)-1997-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
PARTAP STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AMRITSAR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
BHILWARA SPINNERS LTD VS. COLLECTOR STAMPS BHILWARA [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-4-27] [REFFERED TO : (AIR 1995 SC 288) AIR 1995 SC 288 : (1994) 6 SCC 572 : 1994 AIR SCW 4453 14]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BHILWARA SPINNERS LIMITED [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-11-8] [REFFERED TO]
COMMISSIONER TAMBARAM MUNICIPALITY WEST TAMBARAM VS. K.B. VASUDEVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
DIAGEO BRANDS B.V. VS. KHODAY BREWERIES LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
G.P.S PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-317] [REFERRED TO]
G. ARUMUGAM AND ORS. VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANCHEEPURAM AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-423] [REFERRED TO]
ASSTT ASSESSOR AND COLLECTOR, A WARD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-236] [REFERRED]
PULAMACHETTI RAJESWARAMMA VS. GRAM PANCHAYAT [LAWS(APH)-2007-10-127] [REFERRED]
M.NARAYANA SWAMY VS. THE COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
ARNATTU VELLALAR MADAM VS. CHIDAMBARAM MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-675] [REFERRED TO]
HITESH V SHAH VS. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI, RIPON BUILDING [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAGAN AND OTHERS VS. THE COMMISSIONER, POLLACHI MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-847] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. TODAY HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
VANI SEKAR VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-217] [REFERRED TO]
SRI MANZOOR ALAM VS. ILA PATHAK [LAWS(GAU)-2020-2-124] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.)In this appeal preferred against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the question that arises is whether the suit filed by the appellants in the civil court questioning the revision of property tax in the year 1984 is not barred by virtue of Rule 25 contained in Part-I of Schedule-III of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 The suit was initially instituted by three persons. While plaintiffs 1 and 3 are two of the house-owners within Belgaum Municipal Corporation, the second plaintiff is an Association of house-owners within the said Corporation limits. Subsequently, fourteen other individuals owning houses within the said corporation limits joined as plaintiffs. The relief asked for in the plaint is for a declaration that the revision of property tax effected by the defendant Corporation in the year 1984 is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and should not be enforced against the owners of the houses in Belgaum.The Trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable in Civil Court by virtue of Rule 25 aforesaid. On appeal, however, the first Appellate Court took a contrary view. It held that the suit is maintainable and , accordingly, remitted the matter to the trial Court for disposal on merits. The order of the Appellate Judge was questioned by the Municipal Corporation by way of miscellaneous civil appeal which has been allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court.
(2.)Sub-section (2) of S. 108 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 provides for levy of property tax. It fixes a certain ceiling beyond which the tax cannot be levied. Sub-section (3) provides that for the purposes of assessing the property tax, the rateable value of any building or land shall be determined by the Commissioner. Sec. 109 prescribes the method of assessment of property tax. It also prescribes the method in which the rateable value of a building or land shall be determined. Section. 117 empowers the Commissioner to ask for any information, and also to enter upon premises for the purpose of collecting information, to enable him to make a proper assessment. Section 147 says that the rules and tables embodied in Schedule-III shall be read as part of Chapter X (Chapter X deals with the levy of property tax and its assessment among other matters). Section 148 provides that the Corporation shall revise any tax imposed by it once in every five years or whenever such enhancement is found necessary.
(3.)Schedule-III contains the taxation rules. The rules provide for the Commissioner preparing and keeping assessment books containing necessary particulars which shall be open for inspection by the tax-payers (Rule I).It is for the Commissioner to determine the tax to which each property or person is liable (Rule 2). The assessment books shall have to be completely revised by the Commissioner once in every five years and an assessment once made shall continue until it is revised (Rules 5 and 6). Rule 7 prescribes the procedure when assessment books are prepared for the first time or whenever a general revision of the books is completed. It provides for giving a public notice containing the prescribed particulars. Rule 8 says that the Commissioner may after giving notice to the parties concerned and after hearing the objections, if any, amend the books by making the necessary amendments and alterations. Any person aggrieved by the assessment of property tax is entitled to file an appeal before the Taxation Appeals Committee (R.18). A second appeal lies to District Court as provided by Rule 20. There is, however, a condition attached to this right of second appeal, viz., that the tax is to be paid within the period prescribed. Rule 19 confers suo motu power of revision on the Divisional Commissioner of the Revenue Division to be exercised in cases where any assessment or an order is prejudicial to the interests of revenues of the Corporation. Rule 22 empowers the District Court to state a question of law for the opinion of the High Court in an appropriate case. Rule 25 then says that "subject to any order of the District Court or the Divisional Commissioner or the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee or the orders passed by the Commissioner, the assessment or demand of any tax shall be final."
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.