SOMABHAI MAGANBHAI DARJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is order dated 31/5/2003 passed by the State Government confirming the order dated 17/4/2002 passed by the Collector, Kheda upholding the action of the Municipality in revising the assessment for the purpose of levy and collection of property tax, water tax, drainage tax and education cess on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Administrator of the Dakor Municipal Borough on 30/3/2001 at Annexure 'A' (colly.).

(2.) By resolution No.91 dated 30/3/2001 the Administrator of the Municipal Borough resolved to follow necessary legal procedure for revision of assessment at the interval of four years as per the provisions of Section 105 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By resolution No.92 the Administrator resolved to collect education cess as stipulated in Section 12 of the Gujarat Education Cess Act,1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cess Act'). By resolution No.97 the Administrator resolved to levy and collect water tax at a rate higher than erstwhile rate. By resolution No.98 the Administrator resolved to levy and collect drainage tax and special drainage tax at a rate higher than erstwhile rates. There is no dispute about the fact that the State Government under Section 104 of the Act granted sanction for increase in the rates of water tax and drainage tax. There is no increase in the rates of property tax. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution No.30/3/2001 the municipal borough undertook the revision of assessment and made upward revision of valuation of several properties. A number of persons lodged objections against such upward revision of assessment of the respective parties. The municipality appointed two officers as Appellate Officers for hearing and deciding such objections as contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (2) & (3) of Section 108 of the Act. The present petitioners are the persons who claim to have lodged objections against upward revision assessment and whose objections have been turned down by the municipality.

(3.) Mr.A.J.Shastri, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State Government has granted approval for increasing rates of water tax and drainage tax but the State Government has not granted any approval for levy of education cess. Hence, the levy of education cess by the respondent municipal borough is without any authority of law. It is further submitted that the respondents have levied education cess without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other residents of Dakor. Thirdly, it is contended that retrospective levy and collection of tax before the sanction of the Collector is illegal.