Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of five writ petitions, Civil Writ No. 482 of 1967, Auto Lamps Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors., Civil Writ No. 1928 of 1967, Rattanchand Harjasrai (Plastics) Private Ltd., v. State of Haryana and Anr., Civil Writ No. 1929 of 1967, Krishna Flour and Oil Mills, v. State of Haryana and Ors., Civil Writ No. 1930 of 1967, Hitkari Brothers, v. State of Haryana and Anr., and Civil Writ No. 1199 of 1968, Eastern Electronics, v. State of Haryana and Anr., which have been ordered to be heard together because a common question of law arises in all of them.
(2.) I shall deal with the facts of Civil Writ No. 1199 of 1968, Eastern Electronics, v. State of Haryana and Anr., and decide the common point of law involved in all the five petitions. Eastern Electronics is a proprietary concern owned by Shri N. Balasundram. It has a factory at Faridabad which, is engaged in manufacturing a variety of radios, radio parts and other electronic equipments. The manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power and the number of employees has always been more than two hundred. In 1962 the State Government extended the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) to Faridabad N.I.T. and the Petitioner -factory came to be assessed to property tax under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Assessing Authority assessed the gross annual value of the Petitioner -factory at Rs. 80,000 and the property tax assessed was Rs. 6,800 for which a demand notice was issued. The Petitioner objected to the gross annual value determined by the Assessing Authority but did not press his objections on merits because under Rule 18 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1941 (hereinafter called the Rules), the lands and buildings used for the purpose of the factory were exempt from the levy of the property tax. The lands and buildings of the Petitioner -factory were thus allowed exemption from year to year. On March 21, 1966 the State Government amended Rule 18 of the Rules so as to insert the words "the annual rental value of which does not exceed Rs. 900" between the words "all buildings and lands" and "owned by the proprietor of a factory" According to this amendment the lands and buildings of the Petitioner -factory became liable to the property tax and the Assessing Authority issued demand notice for the year 1966 -67 for the payment of Rs. 6,800 on account of that tax. The Petitioner raised objections under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Shri T. N. Kapur, the Assessing Authority, passed an interim order making a demand on the annual value of Rs. 34,000 instead of Rs. 80,000 for the year 1966 -67. The Petitioner deposited that tax but later received a demand notice for the payment of Rs. 11,320 on account of property tax for 1966 -67 (Rs. 4,520) and property tax for 1967 -68 (Rs. 6,800). The sum of Rs. 4,520 demanded for the year 1966 -67 was the difference between Rs. 6,800 and the amount already paid by the Petitioner on the annual value of Rs. 34,000.
(3.) THE Petitioner's case is that Shri T. N. Kapur had reduced the annual value from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 34,000 and, therefore, his successor had no jurisdiction to review it so as to increase it again to Rs. 80,000. The case of the Respondents is that when objections were filed by the Petitioner, Shri T. N. Kapur passed an interim order, the effect of which was that the Petitioner was asked to pay the property tax on Rs. 34,000 and for the remaining amount the recovery was stayed till the objections were determined. Shri T, N. Kapur came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to review the annual value already fixed on September 12, 1962 which was to be effective till March 31, 1968. He, therefore, rejected the objections of the Petitioner and determined the property tax payable for the years 1966 -67 and 1967 -68 at Rs. 6,800 each. The order assessing the property tax as Rs. 6,800 for the year 1966 -67 was not passed by the successor of Shri T. N. Kapur but by Shri T. N. Kapur himself. The Assessing Authority, Faridabad Rating Area, Respondent 2, himself reduced the gross annual value of the lands and buildings of the Petitioner -factory from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 35,600 by order, dated November 9, 1967. According to Respondent 2 this valuation was to be effective with effect from April 1, 1968 and not for the period prior thereto. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition in this Court challenging the amendment in Rule 18 of the rules made by the State Government on March 21, 1966 and for the quashing of the demand notices.;