BEJOY CHAND MOGHA Vs. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAWS(CAL)-1996-2-17
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 20,1996

BEJOY CHAND MOGHA Appellant
VERSUS
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.K.Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)Heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jibon Ratan Chatterjee appearing with Mr. Badal Ch. Saha and the learned Advocate for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Mr. Aloke Ghose. Considered the materials on record.
(2.)By this revision, the petitioner has challenged the order No 34 dated 3rd June, 1995 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, in case No. 904/1988, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner herein to pay commercial surcharge as a part of the consolidated rate as under sub-section (2) of section (20) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980.
(3.)In view of that order, the petitioner has come up before this Court and Mr. Chatterjee contended that the commercial surcharge cannot be demanded from the petitioner for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. Inasmuch as, no bill for the tax regarding commercial surcharge has been presented to the petitioner asking for payment. In support of his submission. Mr. Chatterjee referred to sections 215 and 216 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (which term will be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act'). He further submitted that there are different modes of recovery of the tax and he referred to section 214 of the said Act for the purpose of showing the mode of recovery. Section 215 of the Act envisages that tax shall be payable on such dates, in such number of installments and in such manner as may be prescribed. In sub-section (2) of that section it is provided that if any amount due is paid on or before the date determined under sub-section (1), a rebate of 5% of such amount shall be allowed. Section 216 of the Act enumerates that when any tax has become due, the Municipal Commissioner shall cause to be presented to the person liable for the payment thereof a bill for the amount due. The proviso contemplates exemption regarding the same matters from presentation of the bill. Section 214 of the Act provides the manner of recovery of tax and one of such mode is by presentation of bill. So there is no doubt that money cannot be demanded from the person unless a bill for the same is presented. Section 216 sub-section (1) has got two parts. The first part is that a tax becomes due and the second part is recovery of the bill by presentation of the bill. So, presentation follows the amount due regarding tax. Section 217 of the Act speaks that the payment of the tax is to be paid within 30 days from the date of presentation of the bill. Mr. Ghose contended that sub-section(3) of section 217 of the Act provides that in case of failure of such payment of the bill, interest will be charged on that. We are not at all concerned with that part of interest. Mr. Ghose further contended that admittedly it is the position of the law that unless a bill is being presented, there is no liability on the part of the person from whom the tax has become due to pay. He also submitted that in view of section 189 and particularly sub-section (6) of that an appeal shall not be entertained unless the consolidated rate in respect of any land or building for the period ending on the date of presentation of the appeal on the valuation determined under section 188 of the Act has been deposited in the office of the Corporation and the appeal shall abate unless such consolidated rate is continued to be deposited till the appeal is finally disposed of.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.