- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 9, 2014, passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.576 of 2014. The gist of the facts that led to the filing of the present appeal is as under.
(2.) The appellant Club is aggrieved by the reassessment of annual valuation for the period 1st quarter 2000-01 in respect of premises no.18, Golf Club Road, Ward no.94, Kolkata-33. They have further sought restoration of annual valuation of Rs.2,40,000/- for the first quarter period which was in existence as on the date of impugned order of the Corporation. According to Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellants/petitioners, there is total lack of application of mind so far reasoning of the impugned order of the respondents apart from not following the procedure in serving copy of the order on the assessee. He took us through Sections 192, 188 and 186 apart from Rule 9 and also the Form H under which the intimation ought to have been sent to the assessee. So far delay in approaching this Court, according to the learned Senior Counsel, when the respondent authority did not follow the procedure contemplated how a copy of the order had to be served. There is no effective date of operation of the order. Therefore, the order never became operative. Hence, there was no obligation on the part of the appellants/petitioners to approach the Court on earlier occasion. He took us through the contents of the order impugned dated September 23, 2005 and pointed out that the Hearing Officer has not at all given any reasoning why the reassessment of valuation is determined at the particular rate indicated in the impugned order. He also relies upon two decisions of this Court in Narendra Dev Narayan @ N.D. Narayan vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors., 2002 3 CalHN 65 and in Paresh R. Kampani vs. State of West Bengal,1997 2 CalLJ 262.
(3.) We have gone through the contents of the said judgments with reference to what exactly certified copy would mean under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. As against the said argument of the appellants/petitioners, Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Advocate General arguing for respondent municipality, submits that when the representative of the appellants/petitioners was aware of the order of September 23, 2005 and when the said order indicates they had received a copy of the order on February 10, 2005 itself, there was no justification for the appellants/petitioners to keep quiet till 2014. According to him, the delay and laches on the part of the appellants/petitioners would come in the way of giving any concession so far as the appellants/petitioners. According to learned Additional Advocate General, it is a longstanding practice that certified copy of the order would be handed over to the representative or the Advocate appearing for the assessee and there was no instances for issuance of copy of order in Form H. According to him, nomenclature of the form in which the order has to be served would not be the criterion, whether appellants/petitioners were aware of the order would be the criteria.;