- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against re-assessment of holding tax by the respondent-municipality.
(2.) Mr. S. N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the said re-assessment is highly exorbitant, inasmuch as the earlier tax was about Rs. 200/- per year, whereas it has been enhanced to about Rs. 1360.16 per year. He further submitted that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before re-assessment of tax.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondent, submitted that the tax is to be enhanced/reassessed every 5 years, but for one or other reason, it could not be enhanced after 1983, till 1996-97 and therefore, it cannot be said that re-assessment is exorbitant. He further submitted that after assessment, valuation of holding was fixed at Rs. 4,500/-. The petitioner objected to the same by filing form-C. From Annexure-4 itself, it will appear that notice was served on him on receipt of form-C, but he did not choose to appear and ultimately the respondents after taking into consideration the entire matter passed order on 24.4.1999 reducing the value from Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 3,500/-. Referring to Paragraph-5, he further submitted that it was found that petitioner owned and possessed a double-storeyed building, situated in the heart of town at Surajmal Road, consisting of four big rooms, four shops, two kitchens, two veranda and water connection in the house. He also relied on a judgment in the case of Sidhnath Singh v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2004(3) JLJR 498.;