Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -Food Corporation of India has filed these two writ petition bearing CWPs No. 21628 and 21641 of 2008, challenging the order of assessment of House Tax dated 16.7.1998, passed by the Municipal Council, Guru Harsahai; the order dated 22.8.2006, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, as Appellate Authority; as well as the order dated 28.4.2008, passed by respondent No. 1 on the revisions filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE petitioner Corporation has one of its storage depots at Guru Harsahai, District Ferozepur, on which it is liable to pay the house tax under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Prior to 1.4.1998, the annual rental value of the said godown was assessed and an amount of Rs. 60,000/ - per annum was imposed as house tax. Thereafter, for the assessment year 1998 -99, a notice for reassessment of the house tax was issued under Section 65/67 of the Act, proposing the annual rental value of the said godown at Rs. 21,60,000, on which annual house tax comes to Rs. 2,91,600/ -. After considering the objections raised by the petitioner Corporation and providing an opportunity of hearing, the assessment was finalized and rental value of the said godown was assessed at Rs. 19,44,000/ -, on which the petitioner corporation was liable to pay the annual house tax of Rs. 2,62,400/ -. On the basis of he said assessment, the petitioner Corporation paid the house tax at the aforesaid rate upto 2006 and when the demand for the year 2006 -07 was raised by issuing a notice, the petitioner Corporation filed 2 appeals i.e. first against the order dated 16.7.1998, whereby the assessment was finalized and house tax was determined at Rs. 2,62,440/ - per annum; and the second against the demand notice issued for the assessment year 2006. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22.8.2006, on the ground of limitation. The petitioner Corporation filed revision petitions against the orders of the Appellate Authority, which were also dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2008 by respondent No. 1, while observing as under: A perusal of the record produced by Municipal Council relating to assessment of property shows that firstly the Municipal Council has sought some information as regards the storage capacity and amount of rent paid by the petitioner etc. on 23.05.1998. On the basis of information supplied by petitioner, the Municipal Council had issued notice of assessment as provided under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 informing him that it is proposed to enhance the rent amount from Rs. 60,000/ - to Rs. 2,91,600/ -. The petitioner was heard and his objection was duly considered. On the basis of the documents on record, the Municipal Council on 16th July, 1998, decided to fix the amount as Rs. 2,62,440/ - instead of Rs. 2,91,000/ - as proposed. On the basis of this final order, the bill of demand has been (issued) regularly on year to year basis has been depositing the payment though under protest (sic). This shows that the petitioner had no genuine and tenable grievance against the final order otherwise, the petitioner would have immediately filed the appeal. It is specifically provided in the Act that order of assessment can be challenged before the appellate authority within 30 days of the date of impugned order. No justification what so ever was pleaded or shown while filing the appeal before the appellate authority for the unexplained long delay of approximately 8 years. As per the law if for any reasons, the party has failed to challenge the order within the prescribed period of limitation, the party is duty bound to satisfy the Court/authority with regard to the reasons, which were beyond the control of the party, owning to which the party could not file the appeal within the time and it is incumbent to satisfy the court in respect of each day of delay. Mere pleading for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal, is not sufficient. The petitioner has failed to point out any glaring irregularity or error in the impugned order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur or in the order of assessment passed by Municipal Council, Guru Harsahai on 16th July, 1998. The Municipal Council has finalized the assessment by following the due procedure and effective opportunity was also given to the petitioner to plead his case. Thus, the order of assessment suffers from no infirmities. As such, I do not find any error in the order of the appellate authority. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition as well as the impugned orders, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , in the present case, the assessment was finalized vide order dated 16.7.1998, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner Corporation to the proposed assessment as well as after providing opportunity of hearing to it. Further, on the basis of the aforesaid assessment order, the petitioner Corporation has continuously paid the house tax for the period of 8 years i.e. upto 2006, though it is stated that the same was paid under protest, without filing the appeal against the said order. It has been stated that the appeal against the assessment order could not be filed, as certified copy of the order was not supplied. During the course of hearing, it was asked as to when the petitioner Corporation applied for the certified copy and when it was supplied to it, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not explain this. It appears that the petitioner Corporation, in spite of having the knowledge of the assessment order, did not file the appeal against the same within the prescribed time and remained silent for 8 years without any justification and reason. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeals, filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation, as the petitioner Corporation could not satisfactorily explain the reasons for not filing the appeal for 8 years. In our opinion, it is a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner Corporation. In such case, delay cannot be condoned. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed.;