DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioners have questioned the authority of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to demand surcharge on property tax on and from May 1, 2007 till January 1, 2012 in view of the omission of Section 171(4) of the Act, 1980 on May 1, 2007 and the coming into effect of Section 232A of the Act of 1980 on January 1, 2012. The writ petitioners contend that, Section 171(4) as it stood prior to its repeal with effect from May 1, 2007 had permitted the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to realize surcharge on property tax. Since Section 171(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 stood repealed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 and the Government had given effect thereto on and from May 1, 2007, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities lost their right to demand surcharge on property tax with effect from May 1, 2007.
(2.) REFERRING to the property tax bills for the first quarter 2008 -2009 till fourth quarter 2008 -2009 it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the annual valuation is not under challenge. The Corporation authorities have levied quarterly surcharge of Rs.5,32,920.50p. which the Corporation authorities are not entitled to levy. Referring to the definition of property tax which had existed under Section 2(20) and the present definition under Section 2(68A) of the Act of 1980 it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the new concept of property tax does not include a surcharge. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, since the writ petitioners have paid the surcharge as demanded in the tax bill at page 49 of the writ petition and since the writ petitioners are not liable to pay the same, the Corporation authorities should be directed to refund such amount immediately to the writ petitioners.
(3.) REFERRING to an interim order passed by the Division Bench it is submitted that, the Division Bench had directed the Corporation authorities to raise bills upon the writ petitioners without incorporating the surcharge. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, all property tax bills raised by the Corporation authorities have since been paid. The writ petition is opposed by the Corporation authorities. It is submitted that, the writ petitioners are liable to pay the surcharge as demanded. The writ petitioners have not challenged the assessment of annual valuation prior to 2006. In view of the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 the annual valuation not being under challenge, the Corporation authorities are entitled to demand surcharge. Referring to Section 232A of the Act of 1980 it is submitted that, the provisions of Section 171(4) remain in force until publication of the scheme under Section 174(1) of the Act of 1980.;