Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged two demand notices being Annexures 'M' and 'N' respectively and one review order being Annexure 'L' to the writ petition, issued by the respondent-Kalna Municipal Authorities in respect of two different holdings being Holding Nos. 412 and 437. Annexure 'M' Is a demand notice for payment of arrear taxes in respect of Holding No. 412 for the period 1992-93 first quarter to 1995-96 4th quarter. Annexure 'N' to the writ petition is a demand notice for payment of arrear taxes in respect of Holding No. 437 for the period of 1982-83 first quarter to 1995-96 fourth quarter. Annexure 'L' to the writ petition Is a communication made by the Chairman, Kalna Municipal Authorities to the petitioner about the reason for which the review application filed by the petitioner la respect of the valuation and assessment for Holding No. 412 was rejected by the Review Committee.
(2.) Earlier the Kalna Municipal Authorities made a composite demand for arrear of taxes payable for Holding Nos. 412 and 437 vide Annexure 'I' to the writ petition. The petitioner moved a writ petition against that demand and a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 15.3.96 In C. O. No. 20390 (W) of 1995 being Annexure 'K' to the writ petition disposed of that writ petition by quashing the said demand notice, but at the same time making it clear that the Municipal Authorities would not be prevented by that order from issuing a fresh notice demanding arrear taxes payable on account of Premises No. 412 in terms of the valuation as allowed to stand. The learned Judge also directed the Municipal Authorities to furnish to the writ petitioner a copy of the order passed on the review application filed by the writ petitioner. The impugned Annexure 'L' to the present writ petition is a communication made by the Chairman, Kalna Municipal Authorities, communicating the reasons for which the review application filed by the petitioner against the valuation and assessment was rejected. At the time of hearing before me, the learned Advocate for the respondent-Municipal Authorities has also produced the attested copy of the records which shows that the review application was rejected on the ground mentioned in Annexnre 'L' to the writ petition. Four reasons have been enumerated in the said Annexure and one of the reasons is that the petitioner is running a Video Hall under the name and style of "Puspa Video" Hall. It is submitted, Inter alia, by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no such Video Hail is run by the petitioner there, that is a question of fact In which a writ Court cannot proceed to enquire Moreover, the learned Advocate for the Central Valuation Board also has placed before me the concerned records from which it would appear that on enquiry certain facts were found and on the basis of those facts, the valuation was, assessed under Section 9(3) of the West Bengal Central Valuation Board Act, 1978. I find no reason to hold that the assessment of valuation and taxes made by the appropriate authorities in this case Is in any way vitiated by any Illegality or impropriety requiring the intervention of this Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner attracts my attention to Annexure 'D' to the writ petition which is a notice of annual valuation issued by the Central Valuation Board, notifying that the Annual Valuation of the erstwhile Holding No. 244 (the present Holding No. 412) was assessed at an annual valuation of Rs. 1,118/- with effect from the first quarter of 1989-90. It is submitted that under the such valuation is to remain in force for a period of six years, but the subsequent notice regarding the same Holding No. 412 being Annexure 'G' to the writ petition shows that the valuation has been raised to Rs. 24,000/- with effect from fourth quarter 1991-92 and the quarterly tax assessed thereon was Rs. 2,400/- A reading of the said notice of assessment of valuation being Annexure'G' to the writ petition will show that the said assessment of annual valuation, raising such valuation to Rs. 24,000/- with effect from the fourth quarter 1991-92 was made under the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 9 of the West Bengal Central Valuation Board Act, 1978. The said sub-section (3) permits a revaluation of the premises on certain ground even within the period of six years from the date of initial assessment of valuation and such valuation or revaluation under Section 9(3) is to remain in force for the unexpired portion of the period referred to In Section 9(2) and this has been also clearly stated in the said notice which is Annexure 'G' to the writ petition. Therefore, I find no wrong on the part of the authorities concerned in making re-valuation under Section 9 (3) on the grounds mentioned specifically in the notice also. As regards Premises No. 437, this is a case of demand for arrear taxes on the valuation which was existing from before. The learned Advocate for the petitioner tries to press that in view of the order passed by the learned Judge in C.O. No. 20390 (W) of 1995, there was no scope for Issuing any fresh demand notice in respect of Premises No. 437. It is true that the order of the learned Judge says that the said order will not prevent the Municipal Authorities from issuing fresh notice demanding arrear taxes on account of Premises No. 412 but that does not mean that Municipal Authorities are debarred from making their demand in respect of Premises No. 437- the attack in the earlier writ petition, as it would appear from a reading of this Court's order dated 15 4.96 was cantering ground mainly the demand in respect of the Holding No. 412, and evidently that is the reason why the learned Judge passing the order dated 15.3.96 said specifically that the said order would not debar the Municipal Authorities from issuing fresh notice in respect of Premises No. 412. That order, is my opinion, does not in any way affect the right of the Municipal Authorities to make demand and realise the arrear taxes payable in respect of Bolding No. 437. It is true that there has been seemingly some anomaly in respect of the amount in the impugned demand of the taxes assessed and the learned Advocate for the respondent-Municipal Authorities also could not offer any explanation. But la my opinion, the nature of the anomaly in this case, on this score, is such that it has no substantial implication of any adverse consequence for the petitioner. The amount of demand on the score of arrear of taxes seems to be lesser than what it would have been on the basis of the tax assessed that rather goes to the benefit of the petitioner far from having any adverse effect on him. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that apart from the question whether such anomaly produces any adverse effect or beneficial effect for the petitioner, this rather shows non-application of mind of the concerned authorities to the matter. In my opinion, that is also of no substantial consequence. If there has been any mistake in making calculation on the basis of the tax already assessed that itself cannot be a reason for quashing the demand itself, particularly when this has no adverse effect on the petitioner and rather appears to be beneficial to him.
(3.) In view of all these aspects of the matter, I find no reason for interference of the writ Court In this matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The affidavit-of-service filed today be kept with record.;