DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) BY an Order dated November 14, 2003 the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation assessed the valuation of the property tax belonging to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
(2.) THE writ petitioner contends that, the Order dated November 14, 2003 of the Hearing Officer is contrary to the provisions of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890 particularly Section 66 thereof. It is also contended that, the impugned order is contrary to the ratio laid down in (Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata and Ors, 2008 1 SCC 615). According to the writ petitioner, alteration in valuation should operate from the quarter next succeeding that quarter in which the alteration is made.
(3.) ON behalf of the Corporation authorities it is submitted that, the Hearing Officer by the impugned order has calculated annual valuation with effect from the first quarter 2002 -2003. Referring to the order sheet it is submitted that the calculation of annual valuation has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890. The last general revision prior to the order impugned was made in the quarter 1996 -1997. It is submitted that, the impugned order relates to the assessment of valuation with effect from the first quarter of 2003 -2003. It is also submitted that, the objection of the Kolkata Corporation that, the general revision should be from 2007 has been dealt with by the impugned order. The impugned order notes such objections and finds that since the last general revision was for 1996 -1997 therefore the next general revision would be with effect from the first quarter of 200 -2003. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.;