- (1.) THE Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated April 17, 2013 is questioning an order of the Hearing Officer-III of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) dated November 7, 2012 (WP p.32). The order is quoted below:- "RO is absent. AAC is present. Heard. Considering the prevailing rate of adjoining premises A.V. is fixed at Rs.2,14,140 including NRAV 35640 as exparte."
(2.) CASE stated in paras.22 and 23 of the WP is as follows:- "22. However, the instant purported process was finalized and the final order passed ex parte without giving or serving any prior notice upon your petitioner. 23. The said purported process was, therefore, continued and finalized in gross violation of the provision of Section 184(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and in gross and flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play." The annual value determination issue was to start under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, s.184(4), which is quoted below:- "(4). Before making any revision of annual value under sub-section (2) of section 180 and clause (a), clause (b) and clause (c) of section 185, the Municipal Commissioner shall give the owner, any lessee, sub-lessee or occupier of any land or building, notice of not less than thirty days that he proposes to make the revision and consider any objection which may be made by such owner, lessee, sub-lessee or occupier."
(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was and is the assessee of the premises with respect to which the hearing officer passed the impugned order fixing its annual value for the purpose of property tax. In view of the provisions of s.184(4) the petitioner was entitled to a notice of the annual value proposed by the Municipal Commissioner and on receipt of notice the petitioner could file objections, if any.;