M/S. ASHIRBAD IMPES (P) LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-606
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 31,2012

M/S. Ashirbad Impes (P) Limited And Another Appellant
VERSUS
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) Let the affidavit of service be kept on record.
(2.) This writ application is directed against consolidated rate - supplementary bills dated May 20, 2003 (Annexure P/4 at pages 21 to 24 of this writ application) issued by the respondent Corporation to the petitioners in respect of Premises No. 119, P.C. Sarkar Sarani, Kolkata-700 019 for the periods from quarters 2nd/2001-2002 to 4th/2003-2004 revising the annual valuation of the above premises at Rs. 74569040.00. The facts of this case, in a nut shell, are as follows:- The petitioners purchased the aforesaid premises No. 119, P.C. Sarkar Sarani, Kolkata-700 019 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) in the year 1996. The names of the petitioners were recorded in the Assessment Register of the respondent Corporation on or about December 9, 1996. The petitioners paid the rate bills raised in respect of such premises till 2003-04 on the basis of annual valuation of Rs. 1101028.40. On March 24, 2003 the petitioners received a notice dated March 17, 2003 from the respondent Corporation issued under Section 184 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to attend hearing on April 7, 2003 for revision of annual valuation of the said premises. On April 4, 2003 the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent Corporation with a prayer for adjourning the hearing on April 7, 2003. According to the petitioners, suddenly the petitioners received the aforesaid consolidated rate supplementary bills without giving further opportunity of hearing to them.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Yasin Ali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the first notice dated March 17, 2003 cannot be sustained in law in view of the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 184 of the said Act. According to him, one month's time was given to the petitioners by virtue of the above notice. According to him, no further notice was served upon the petitioners and the assessment was done behind the back of the petitioners.;


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