RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR,J. - (1.) This is the second round of litigation between the parties. In an earlier writ petition [being WP 319 of 2004 (Bimala Agarwal and Ors. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.)], a Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court had directed the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of a representation of the petitioner. By an order dated 24 February, 2015 ('the impugned order') the Assessor-Collector (South), (the respondent no.3) pursuant to that direction had passed an order disposing of the representation. The challenge in this petition is directed against the impugned order.
(2.) The facts of this case in brief are as follows: (a) The petitioner nos.1 and 2 and one late Urmila Agarwal had jointly purchased a flat being flat no.G/6 situated at premises no.8/1A Sir William Jones Sarani, Kolkata-700017 ('the flat'). It is said that after the death of the said Urmila Agarwal her undivided interest devolved upon her legal heirs i.e. her husband and her two daughters. (b) The flat had at some point of time, been given on tenancy to one IFB Industries who had been paying rent to the petitioners for use and occupation of the flat. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that by an assessment order dated 5 August, 1996 the annual valuation of the flat was determined at Rs.49,860/- and the gross amount of tax payable was assessed at Rs.4,986/- per quarter. It is also alleged that the petitioners had been paying the entire taxes on the basis of the said assessment. (c) The further case of the petitioners is that, IFB Industries surrendered the tenancy in April 2002 and thereafter the flat had been kept under lock and key by the petitioners and no tenant had thereafter been inducted. Subsequently, the petitioners had made payment under a Tax Waiver Scheme promulgated by the respondent authorities for a sum of Rs.1,57,426/-. In this connection, the respondent authorities had also issued a 'No Outstanding Certificate' to the petitioners. The petitioners further alleged that thereafter, no revaluation has been made of the said flat. Suddenly, the petitioners received a demand notice on 29 December, 2014 whereby the petitioners were asked to pay sum of Rs.51,50,601/-. The petitioners challenged the said demand and also challenged the basis of the proposed revision of annual valuation by the respondent authorities. In this background, the petitioners had filed an earlier writ petition being WP 319 of 2014 wherein an order was passed directing the respondent authorities to consider a representation to ascertain the outstanding taxes due and payable to the petitioners by the respondent authorities. (d) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioners were given due notice of the hearing by the respondent no.3 and also were duly represented and heard. By the impugned order, the respondent no.3 rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and directed them to make payments of the outstanding dues in respect of the flat.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and in contravention of law. He submitted that the impugned demand for the enhanced tax even for the period prior to January 2011 did not reflect the correct annual valuation of the flat. He further submitted that the surrender of the tenancy by IFB Industries had taken place as far back as in March 2002 and this fact was not taken note of by the respondent authorities in fixing the annual valuation of the flat. He further alleged that the revision made by the respondent authorities was in violation of principles of natural justice and discriminatory. He also submitted that there was no notice served on the petitioners for the assessment period from January 1996-97. He further submitted that the respondent authorities ignored the assurance given by the respondent authorities whilst accepting payment under the Waiver Scheme as recorded in the no objection certificate. He also submitted that the respondent no.3 erred in placing no reliance on the no outstanding certificate dated 29 March, 2012 issued by the respondent authorities to the petitioners and the impugned order was passed mechanically without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. ;