JUDGEMENT
S.P.Talukdar -
(1.) This arises out of an application under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. It is directed against order dated 29.04.2003 passed
by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in MAA Nos. 400, 407, 412 and 418 of
2000.
(2.) Grievances of the petitioner-M/s. Kapoor & Company Private Limited,
may briefly be stated as follows :
Petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid four units being unit Nos. 250, 263,
260 and unit No. Basement IV having an area of 77.74 sq. ft, 95.30 sq. ft, 74.59
sq. ft, and 18.537 sq. ft. respectively, all situated at 3, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-
700 001. The said units were proposed to be assessed by the respondent/the
Kolkata Municipal Corporation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month with
effect from 3rd quarter 1999-2000 for six years. The Basement Unit No. IV was
proposed at a rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. per month. The petitioner filed objection
against such proposal. The Hearing Officer-VI finalized the said valuation
reducing the rent of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month to Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month
and similarly valuation for the Basement Unit No. IV was fixed at Rs. 2/- per
sq. ft. per month. Though the petitioner is entitled to receive copy of such order
of the Hearing Officer dated 16.12.1999 in terms of section 188 of the Kolkata
Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, it was not given to him. The petitioner
preferred four separate appeals being MAA Nos. 400, 407, 412 and 418 of 2000
before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal'. The Tribunal after hearing the parties reduced the valuation and
calculated the same on the basis of rent at the rate of Rs. 1.85 per sq. ft. per
month for all the units except the Basement-IV and it fixed the valuation at a
rate of Re. 1/- per sq. ft. per month for the Basement.
(3.) The K.M.C. filed four applications under Article 227 of the Constitution
against the said orders of the Tribunal dated 01.02.2001, 22.08.2000, 07.11.2000
and 02.02.2001. Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by four separate orders
dated 04.04.2002 disposed of the said four applications. The petitioner filed
four special leave petitions against the said judgment and order dated 04.04.2002
and the Supreme Court of India by its order dated 23.09.2002 disposed of the
said four special leave petitions by directing that the petitioner should be
permitted to pay property tax as fixed by the Tribunal in its earlier orders
during the pendency of the proceedings of the Tribunal. While sending the
matter back, the Hon'ble Court observed that it finds no substance in the
contentions of the learned Advocate of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation that
the Tribunal has adopted "comparable method" which is not permissible under
the law. This Court observed that the Tribunal did not arrive at any finding on
the basis of the comparable method as argued by the learned Counsel for the
K.M.C. The order was set aside and it was remanded on the technical ground
that Rule 19(6) of the Kolkata Municipal CorporationTaxation Rules, 1987 has
not bee a complied with inasmuch as no formal application was filed for adducing
additional evidence though the same was referred to in the judgment of the
Tribunal. The Tribunal committed the same error while passing the impugned
judgment and relied upon the various judgments, orders and other documents
placed by the K.M.C. without appreciating that no formal application under
Rule 19(6) was filed. In view of the judgment and order dated 04.04.2002, it
was not open to the Tribunal to reopen the assessment afresh and increase the
valuation from Rs. 1.85/- per sq. ft. per month to Rs. 4.75A per sq. ft. per month
without any reason. By order dated 29.04.03 the Tribunal fixed the valuation
of the said basement Unit No. IV at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. per month. The impugned
judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 29.04.03 is bad, illegal and should be
set aside on the reason amongst others that the said Tribunal relied upon certain
facts which have neither been relied upon by the petitioner nor by the
respondent. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to deal with the same.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.