A.P.O. No. 467 of 2012, W.P. No. 298 of 2012. Case: Narbada Devi Harlalka Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | A.P.O. No. 467 of 2012, W.P. No. 298 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: D. S. Mallick, Dipak Das, Advs. and For Respondents: Biswajit Mukherjee, Debangshu Mondal, Advs. |
| Judges | Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. and Murari Prasad Shrivastava , J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226; Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act (59 of 1980) - Sections 189(6), 190 |
| Citation | AIR 2013 Cal 194 |
| Judgement Date | July 29, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
1. The appellants herein are the joint owners of the premises being No. 1, Pratap Ghosh Lane, Kolkata - 700 007. The said appellants filed a writ petition before this Court, challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Hearing Officer concerned of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation who revised the annual valuation in respect of the premises in question by the orders dated 9th April, 2007 for the periods of Second Quarter 1985-1986, Second Quarter 1991-1992, Second Quarter 1997-1998 and Second Quarter 2003-2004. By the aforesaid orders dated 9th April, 2007 Hearing Officer - XI, Calcutta Municipal Corporation enhanced the annual valuation of the aforesaid premises. The appellants herein also challenged the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer concerned in the aforesaid writ petition. The said writ petition was however, dismissed by the learned single Judge upon holding that the order passed by the Hearing Officer had become final under Section 190 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the same therefore, cannot be unsettled at this stage. There is no dispute that challenging the orders passed by the Hearing Officer on 09/04/2007, the appellants herein filed appeals before the Calcutta Municipal Assessment Tribunal but did not make any deposit of property tax as per revised valuation. The aforesaid appeals were duly registered before the learned Tribunal and were serially numbered.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the said appellants came to know that Rs. 11,66,704/- with interest and penalty is to be deposited to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in order to get the appeals entertained.
3. The learned counsel representing the appellants submitted that the said appellants were unable to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,66,704/- in order to get the appeals entertained for hearing and therefore, filed the writ petition before this court challenging the order of the Hearing Officer wherein specific prayer was made for quashing of the annual valuation as determined by the Hearing Officer.
4. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits upon holding that the order passed by the Hearing Officer had become final in terms of Section 190 of the K.M.C. Act. Section 190 of the K.M.C. Act, 1980 is set out hereunder:-
190. The final valuation - Every valuation in the assessment list prepared under section 184 shall, subject to the provisions of section 185 or the order under section 188 or section 189 be final.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellants/writ petitioners further submitted that the annual valuation as determined by the Hearing Officer in respect of the premises in question did not reach finality since appeals were preferred before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellants/writ petitioners filed four appeals challenging the orders dated 9th April, 2007 passed by the Hearing Officer before the Calcutta Municipal Assessment Tribunal upon payment of prescribed fees. The said appeals were duly registered and serially numbered.
7. The learned counsel of the appellants submitted that the aforesaid appeals shall be deemed to be pending until and unless the same are dismissed by the Chairman of the Tribunal in terms of Rule 16 (a) of Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules for non-deposit of arrears of property tax with interest and penalty.
8. The aforesaid Rule 16 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules is set out hereunder:-
16. (a) The person presenting the appeal fails to prove to the satisfaction of the Chairman that the entire amount of the consolidated rate, required to be deposited under sub-section (6) of section 189, has been deposited in the office of the Corporation, or
9. In terms of Section 189 (6), no appeal could be entertained by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal without deposit of consolidated rate at the enhanced rate as determined in terms of Section 188 of the Act. It has also been provided in the aforesaid sub-section (6) of Section 189 that the appeal would abate unless the consolidated rate is continued to be deposited till...
To continue reading
Request your trial