- (1.) The petitioner assails four orders of the Hearing Officer confirming proposed annual valuation for different quarters.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, this is the second writ petition on the same subject. The first writ petition was disposed of by an order dated May 3, 2018. The appeal carried therefrom was disposed of by an order dated July 4, 2008. By such order the Appeal Court directed to Kolkata Municipal Corporation authority to ensure service of a copy of the order passed by the Hearing Officer pursuant to the hearing held on August 10, 2017 upon notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has since received copies of the order of Hearing Officer. He draws the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Hearing Officer and submits that, all four orders impugned are unreasoned. He also draws the attention of the Court to Rule 9 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 and submits that, since, the petitioner did not file any written objection to the proposed annual valuation in terms of Sections 186 and 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the question of the Hearing Officer passing any order does not arise.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation submits that, the petitioner is required to submit a written objection to the proposed annual valuation. The petitioner did not do so. The proposal mooted before the Hearing Officer was considered and approved, in presence of the petitioner. He submits that, Rule 9 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 requires the Hearing Officer to deal with an objection if the same is filed in terms of Sections 186 and 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. In the present case, admittedly, there being no written objection, the impugned orders need not be interfered with.;