SHOLAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. RAMCHANDRA RAMAPPA MADGUNDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN . this reference in essence we are called upon to determine what is the true meaning of the words 'current official year' used in Sub -section (3) of Section 82 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, but the question which has been referred for our decision does not highlight that controversy and therefore we have decided to reframe the question and substitute it by the following two questions: Whether, on a true construction of Section 82(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, (i) an alteration made in the assessment list prepared under Section 78 thereof becomes effective for any period prior to the commencement of the official year in which the. Alteration in the assessment list is made so as to entitle the Municipality to levy tax for an official year or any part thereof which has already expired? or (ii) whether the alteration becomes effective from the commencement of the official year in which it is made so as to entitle the Municipality to levy tax with effect from the commencement of that year only?

(2.) THIS controversy has really arisen because of a conflict of views between the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jalgaon Municipality v. Khandesh Mills (1961) 64 Bom. L.R. 229, and the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Chalisgaon Bor. Municipality v. Multanchand (1955) 58 Bom. L.R. 375 and some earlier single Bench decisions of this Court.

(3.) THE plaintiffs paid up the amount of all these bills in June 1964 but under protest and in consequence filed a suit out of which this reference arises, in the Court of the Fourth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sholapur (Small Cause Suit No. 665 of 1964). In addition to the above amounts the plaintiffs in the suit claimed a small amount of Rs. 11.80 for notice charges. The Civil Judge has decreed the entire claim. One of the points of law raised before the Civil Judge and decided against the Municipality was that the Municipality could not recover the tax with retrospective effect. Having decided the objections of the plaintiffs only on March 28, 1964 and the amendment to the assessment list having been made either immediately on that date or thereafter, they were claiming to recover the tax at the enhanced letting value even for previous years, that is to say, from September 14, 1962 to March 31, 1963 and for the year 1063 -64. As regards the assessment for the year 1964 -65 the Civil Judge held that there was no fresh notice issued and that the assessment for the year 1964 -65 was also illegal.