Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) AS identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated writ petitions, vide this common order to avoid the repetition. However, the factual matrix, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in these writ petitions, has been extracted from (1) CWP No. 13734 of 2009 titled as Yadavindra Public School Association Patiala v. State of Punjab and others."
(2.) THE epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that Municipal Corporation, Patiala (respondent No. 2) (for short "respondent - Corporation") levied the house tax on the properties of Yadavindra Public School Association Patiala (for brevity "petitioner -school"), in view of the provisions of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to be as "the M.C. Act"). The house tax for the assessment years 1995 -1996 and 1996 -97 was paid by the petitioner -school, vide receipt dated 15.10.1996 (Annexure P -4). Sequelly, as the respondent -Corporation proposed to change the rate of tax. therefore, it issued impugned show cause notice dated 11.01.2008 (Annexure P - 8) under Section 103(D) to the petitioner -school, intimating the method of calculation of annual valuation under Section 93(C) of the M.C. Act mentioned therein for the purpose of assessment of house tax for the assessment year 2007 -08. The petitioner -school filed the objection -petition to the proposed method of the calculation of the tax. In the wake of notice (Annexure P -8), the House Tax Sub Committee of the respondent -Corporation, revised the rate of the tax, by means of impugned order dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P -10) in this context.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order (Annexure P -10), the petitioner -school preferred the appeal (Annexure P -11) along with the stay application, under Sections 146 & 147 of the M.C. Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala (Appellate Authority) (respondent No. 3). The respondent -Corporation was stated to have raised the demand of exorbitant amount of house tax for the year 2008 -09, vide bill (Annexure P -12) and for the year 2009 -10, by way of bill (Annexure P -14).;