INDRA PRASANNA MUKERJI,J. - (1.) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Motilal Naresh Kumar decided on 30th November 2006 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, in my humble opinion. According to the narration of facts in the said judgment, the occupier was paying Rs. 60,510/- per month as rent which "included the occupier's share of all the existing taxes to be borne by the owner". The occupier's share was not quantified. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court in the last page of the judgment quantified the amount by taking it as 28% of the gross rent.
(2.) In this case, the property tax which the owner was receiving was quantified. It was Rs. 6,114/- as on 20th June 2002 as would appear from a letter on the same date of the writ petitioner to the Corporation.
(3.) The Assessing Officer by his order dated 11th November 2002 ruled as follows: "Hear Sukalyan Mandal, AR appears. It is stated by the AR that the Rent bill issued by the owner is inclusive of Occupier's tax payable by the tenant and hence this amount is to be deducted from the rent and accordingly the AV is to be fixed. In my opinion whatever amount is received by the owner from the tenant in whatever name will be considered as Rent and hence, the owner is not liable for deduction of the amount. This is because the Tax is payable by the owner to the KMC and the tenant has nothing to do with such payment. Under the circumstances, the AV fixed by the authority of the KMC at Rs. 3,97,610/- is conferred and the entire amount is considered as NRAV." ;