Protik Prakash Banerjee,J. - (1.) The Court: I had adjourned the matter on August 7, 2019 so that the parties could produce before me the reverse of the bills said to have been raised against the superior lessor - which it was alleged had been challenged only by the tenants of the present petitioner - to ascertain the grounds for the increase in valuation, and for Mr. Arindam Banerjee to produce the statute relating to multistoried buildings in West Bengal.
(2.) When the matter was taken up today, the learned advocates for the Respondent no. 1 submitted that they did not have the office copy of the bills so raised on the superior lessor apparently because the bills were all computer generated and the originals were sent to the superior lessor whereas the server/mainframe only has the data pertaining to each assessee on record and therefore the current print-out will not be the copy of the one which was sent to the superior lessor but only contain the same particulars. Hence, it was not possible for the respondent no. 1 to produce the reverse of the said bills. Mr. Mukherjee led by Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, the learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the petitioner could be called on the produce it. When I reminded him that the petitioner had submitted before me on an earlier date, that the Petitioner had no copy of the bill which was not raised upon him and that he had no notice of hearing served on him as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the learned advocates for the respondent no. 1 placed before me today WP No.166 of 2014 where the petitioners themselves have challenged the hearing notices both in the cause-title and in the prayer portion. A prayer for certiorari was sought in that writ petition, for quashing of the said bills. Naturally, unless copies of the bills (raised on the superior lessor) are annexed to the petition, no such prayer would have been maintainable. This shows that the petitioners had copies of the complete bills at least before they instituted that earlier writ petition and so ought to have produced the said bills. This ought to have been disclosed by the petitioners instead of taking contrary stand before this Court pretending as if they had no copy the hearing notice.
(3.) Once this aspect of the matter was brought before the Court, Mr. Banerjee submitted that the entire case can be resolved and the writ petition disposed of, if the assessment of the building was completed in accordance with law where the stakeholders were all given due notice and bills were raised accordingly. He submits that if the same is done, the liability of the assessee in respect of the said building would crystallize and hence, the amount that the present petitioner paid under the valuation which was set aside, could be refunded with interest and whatever was due after the fresh assessment could be paid by the person liable.;