- (1.) The writ petition challenges the assessment to property tax for the godown under occupation of the Warehousing Corporation. Notice of revision of tax was issued under Section 78 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 on 24.5.1988, assessing annual rental value at Rs. 1,50,000/- after deducting amount @ 12-1/2% towards repairs and assessed annual tax at Rs. 1,31,250/-. The objection is said to have been made by the petitioner within a period of 30 days, as contemplated in law and the respondent- Municipal Committee purported to make the assessment of tax at Rs. 1,05,000/-. The petitioner had challenged it by means of appeal as well as revision contesting the mode of assessment of tax. To a challenge made by the petitioner that the assessment had been made without going through the procedure as set down under Section 79 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, the defence by the Municipal Committee is that the petitioner had already paid the tax and it cannot contest the same before this court.
(2.) Before arguments got underway, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent points out that there is a typographical error in preparing the copy of Annexure P/1 annexed along with the writ petition. The annual rental value was not stated to be '1.05 lakh but the ground rental had been said to be Rs. 15,00,000/- in the assessment register and the rental value hasbeen calculated as the percentage of the same only at Rs. 1,31,250/-, as stated in the copy. The counsel would produce before me the copy of the register with the seal of the office that the tax was assessed at '1.05 lakh which on appeal was reduced to Rs. 90,000/-. The amount of Rs. 1,05,500/- has been paid by the Corporation under protest and I have seen through the documents produced by the petitioner that this payment could not operate to take an objection with regard to the assessment made.
(3.) Section 79 enacts a rule of procedure that conforms to the rules of natural justice. An assessment that is passed on an objection regarding the manner of assessment of rental value cannot be merely unilateral, but it must take into account the objection taken by the petitioner. If the rental value must be taken at 60 paise per bag, then as per the entries contained in the assessment register itself, the rental value would have been only at Rs. 1,22,080/-. There had been also a reference to three rooms which have been assessed at Rs. 80/- per month. If the annual value were to be added, the total annual rental value would have been Rs. 1,22,040/-. The assessment of tax would be possible only after the assessment of the rental value. The rental value could either be on the basis of determination of the capital value of the building that would include the land value plus the value of the building or the actual rent recoverable by the application of the present principle under the Rent Restriction Act. Going by the entries in the assessment register that the rental value was sought to be assessed on the basis of the rent payable 60 paise per bag, the rental value could not have been Rs. 1,31,250/-, as found in the assessment register. There is an obvious error in the calculation. The value could have been only Rs. 1,22,040/- and the tax must relate to the percentage of what the rates admit of. The entries in the assessment register that tax payable was '1.05 lakhs does not follow any procedure and does not indicate the manner how the amount was arrived at. It also violates the procedure which is set down under Section 79. I reject the argument that by paying the tax of Rs. 1,05,005, the Corporation has lost its right to challenge the quantum. As I have indicated, this amount has been paid on 26.2.1990 under protest. The writ petition has been filed after disposal of the revision petition pointing out to the statutory lapse of not entertaining an objection taken by the petitioner as regards the manner of assessment of property tax.;