SARBJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari against the inaction of respondent No.2 in levying/calculating the property tax in excess as notified in the manual, Annexure P-2, by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar; for restraining respondent No.2 from sealing the shop in question along with recovery of excessive property tax for the year 2012-13 in view of notice dated 7.9.2016 (Annexure P-17); for quashing the letter dated 9.5.2014 (Annexure P-13) and the order dated 18.7.2016 (Annexure P-16) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (in short "the Commissioner"); and for issuance of a direction restraining respondent No.2 from levying the annual rental value in excess of rates notified vide letter dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner entered into a Lease Agreement on 30.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) with the lessee to operate the Franchisee of M/s Levis Strauss India Private Limited and the rent was to be paid to the lessor at the rate of Rs. 76,000/- per month. The parameters of calculation of the property tax have been laid down in the manual, Annexure P-2. The Annual Rental Value of the property was Rs. 8,20,800/- and respondent No.2 vide letter dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) assessed the value of the property in question as Rs. 8,64,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Respondent No.2 unilaterally increased the rate of the Annual Rental Value of the property at Rs. 16,84,000/- and used the same amount to calculate the annual tax amount for the said property for the year 2010-11. Vide letter dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.2 invited objections from the petitioner against the calculation of assessment of tax within 30 days. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his objections vide letter dated 6.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2. The petitioner had paid the house tax/property tax of all the rented properties including the property in dispute for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide receipts (Annexures P-6 to P-10, respectively). The property in dispute fell vacant from November, 2012 when the Lease Agreement of the petitioner with the lessee was terminated and, therefore, no rental value/income was being generated for the petitioner from the same. Respondent No.2 vide letters dated 18.2.2014 and 2.4.2014 (Annexures P-11 and P-12, respectively) directed the petitioner to appear before it for hearing of the objections. Respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 9.5.2014 (Annexure P-13) under Section 103 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to the petitioner proposing the Annual Rental Value of the property at Rs. 16,84,800/- per annum for the year 2010-11 raising the Annual Rental Value from Rs. 8,64,000/- assessed for the year 2008-09. Accordingly, respondent No.2 calculated the total tax at Rs. 6,11,488/- and sought the recovery vide letter/bill dated 9.7.2014 (Annexure P-14). Feeling aggrieved by the letter, Annexure P-13, enhancing the Annual Rental Value of the property in question for assessment year 2010-11 at Rs.n 16,84,800/-, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 13.8.2014 (Annexure P-15) before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 18.7.2016 (Annexure P-16) dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 7.9.2016 (Annexure P-17) directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,11,488/- for the assessment year 2012-13 otherwise the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act were to be initiated to seal the property in question. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition is contested by the respondents. It has been pleaded by respondent No.2 in its written statement that the manual, Annexure P-2, related to the calculation of property tax which was levied in the year 2013-14 and the assessment was to be made as self-assessment and not house tax assessment which was done by the officials of respondent No.2 before the year 2013-14. It was further pleaded that the Annual Rental Value of the property in question was assessed at Rs. 8,64,000/- per annum as self commercial for the assessment year 2008-09 and the objections were sought from the petitioner. The petitioner did not raise any objection and the property was assessed at the said rate. Thereafter, the property in question was inspected on 23.9.2010 and on finding that the first floor and the second floor were rented out and the petitioner was receiving the total rent of Rs. 1,56,000/- per month, the Annual Rental Value of the property was amended and increased to Rs. 16,84,800/-. A notice under Section 103 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and his objections were sought which he submitted vide letter dated 6.12.2010. The petitioner was requested to appear before the assessing authority on various dates, but he did not appear. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 8.5.2014 assessed the Annual Rental Value of the property at Rs. 16,84,800/- per annum and issued a bill dated 9.7.2014 to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,11,488/- as arrears of house tax. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said assessment which was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 18.7.2016 (Annexure P-16). The other averments made in the writ petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made.