Arindam Sinha,J. - (1.) Mr. Surojit Dasgupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, demands by Letters of Intimation have been issued by the Corporation. His clients purchased seventh floor of the building in year 2015. The intimations contain particulars of arrears, demanded for period prior to the purchase as on re-assessment. He relies on judgement of co-ordinate Bench in Diamond Infotech Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in (2010) 3 CHN 190 (Cal), paragraphs 8 to 11. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation and submits, the writ petition is not maintainable as petitioner received notice of assessment, after which it was made. If petitioners are aggrieved, they must prefer appeal, which is efficacious statutory alternative remedy available to them. Without prejudice he relies on sub-section [4] in section 183, Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 to submit, there should be no interference. Petitioners deliberately stayed away from the assessment proceeding. Now they are not entitled to move the writ Court.
(2.) In Diamond Infotech Private Limited and Anr. (supra) co-ordinate Bench was of view that on harmonious reading of provisions in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, a purchaser is entitled to a right of hearing on recovery proceedings initiated by the Corporation, to recover taxes due on the property, where intimation of transfer was not given to the Corporation. As such petitioners are entitled to a right of hearing per the view. Furthermore, since petitioners alleged that re-assessment has been made pertaining to period, in which petitioners were not owner of the portion of the property, this right of hearing can be used by them to agitate such point.
(3.) On query from Court Mr. Basu submits, intimations include the assessments notified by assessment notices served on petitioners. The assessment notice clearly says with effect from 2nd quarter 2016-17 while the intimations contain demand for 1st quarter in year 2005. Interference is warranted since petitioners' right of hearing stood affected. The Corporation's contention of petitioners having deliberately stayed away disentitling them cannot be accepted since there has been demand for prior period pursuant to notice of assessment for current period.;