- (1.) The short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals by grant of special leave by Calcutta Municipal Corporation is whether the imposition for the process of change in the name of the owner in the assessment books of the corporation is in the nature of. "a fee" or "tax".
(2.) For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 5631 of 2000. 2.1. Premises bearing no. 9a, Jatindra mohan Avenue, Calcutta - 700 006 belonged to Tapas Ghosh, Meenakshi Sinha and Gayatri Chandra. By several deeds of conveyance, they sold the said premises to M/s Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd. , M/s Drishti mercantile (P) Ltd. and M/s KIC Resources ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the developers"). The building in the premises was very old and was in a dilapidated condition. The developers decided to construct a new building after demolishing the existing old structure. The developers submitted the building plan for sanction which the corporation refused to accept without the names of the developers being brought on record by way of mutation. On 21.3.1997, the developers applied for mutation by deletion of the names of the previous owners and substitution of their names for which the corporation demanded mutation fees of Rs. 3 lacs under Calcutta Corporation (Taxation) Regulations, 1989. This demand was challenged by filing of writ petition in the Calcutta High Court.
(3.) The Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1988 was passed by the state Legislature, which was published in the gazette on 9.1.1989 and which came into effect from 20. 2.1989. Section 7 of the Amendment Act (XXI of 1988) provided as under: "Section 7. Amendment of Section 183 In sub-section 183 of the Principal Act (1) after the words "under this Section", the words "and upon payment of such fees as may be determined by regulation" shall be inserted, and (2) the words "in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed" shall be omitted. ";