LAWS(MAD)-1995-3-81

KUTTY FLUSH DOORS AND FURNITURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED MADRAS Vs. MADRAS METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD MADRAS

Decided On March 16, 1995
KUTTY FLUSH DOORS AND FURNITURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MADRAS Appellant
V/S
MADRAS METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Furniture Company, is having its registered office at 37, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Madras . THE premises comes under the Koyambedu Panchayat Union and they have no water supply to the premises. THE occupants make their own arrangements for providing water supply. THE first respondent has not also made any arrangement for supply of protected water supply to the premises. THE Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) supersedes all other connected Acts and the Board is exclusively attending to the needs of the public within the area covered by the Act. THE petitioner has referred to the various provisions of the Act and I will make a reference to them, if and when necessary. In this case, the petitioner is primarily concerned with the levy of water tax and the notice issued on 17. 1. 1990, in and by which a huge demand is made as water tax for the assessment years 2/79-80 till 2/89-90. THE total amount demanded is Rs. 29,429. 40 at the rate of Rs. 1,337-70 per half year. THE notice says that the water and sewerage tax as detailed therein should be paid within 30 days of the date of the bill. THE contention of the petitioner is that no demand was ever made for payment of water-tax in respect of the premises at any time, before the impugned notice, dated 17. 1. 1990. It is in fact contended that there was no levy at all as contemplated under the Act, and therefore, the demand is illegal. It is also pointed out that the Board has not provided any facilities, like water supply or sewerage connection to the subject premises. THErefore, it is contended that the respondents are not entitled to demand the water tax. Petitioner refers to Art. 265 of the constitution of India, read with Sec. 84 (b) of the Act to argue that no tax can be levied or collected without the authority of law.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents-Board, it is stated that the Koyambedu village was a Panchayat and added to the Madras City in the year 1979. It comes within the Madras City municipal Corporation limits. Therefore, it is pointed out the Board has jurisdiction over the subject area. It is contended that the Board has every right to collect water and sewerage tax for the areas notified under Sec. 34 of the Act. The Board has been empowered to collect water tax at 7% of the annual value of the building, as assessed by the City Municipal Corporation. The Board also claims that the arrears of tax can be collected by resort to the Revenue recovery Act. The assessment was made on the basis of the annual rental value fixed by the Corporation of Madras. The counter-affidavit proceeds to say that proper notices for payment of tax had been made earlier. It is only because the taxes have not been paid, that the impugned noticed was issued.