SUSHILA DEVI Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is owner of the property bearing Municipal No. 1186A Sasani Ward, Circular Road Bagla Marg, Hathras. The said property is subject to payment of house tax and water tax as levied by Nagar Palika Parishad, Hathras, respondent No. 1. Its earlier annual valuation was Rs. 960 for the purposes of house tax and water tax. These taxes were payable at the rate of 10% of the annual value. The petitioner admittedly made certain additions and alterations in the aforesaid property. There is no averments in the writ petition about the nature of the additions and alterations made in the said property, nor the petitioner has disclosed the date or dates of such additions and alterations. The Nagar Palika Parishad on coming to know of the additions and alterations gave notice under Section 147 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of revising the annual valuation of the property and it. invited objections from the petitioner. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is mentioned that although the relevant section was not mentioned in the notice but it was under Section 147(1)(d) of the Act. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has been stated that in the notice it was mentioned that the assessments would be enhanced from 1.4.1995. The Nagar Palika Parishad by order dated 2nd October, 2001, rejected all the objections of the petitioner. A true copy of the order dated 22.10.2001, has been filed and marked as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Consequently the petitioner became liable to pay the enhanced House Tax and Water Tax, which was proposed through the notice issued under Section 147(1)(d) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is liable to pay the enhanced house tax and water tax in view of the enhancement of the annual letting value w.e.f. 22nd October, 2001 and not for the period prior to it. The annual assessment list, according to the petitioner was authenticated under Section 147(4) of the Act on 22.10.2001. However, respondent No. 1 has issued notice of demand on the basis of the amended annual list retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1995. Being aggrieved by the action of the Nagar Palika Parishad demanding the enhanced tax on the basis of the amended list, w.e.f. 1.4.1995, the present writ petition has been filed. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition the petitioner has clarified her case by stating that she has only challenged the recovery on the basis of the illegal demand from retrospective effect. She has further stated that she is not filing the appeal under Section 160 of the Act as it is not adequate remedy available to her.

(2.) The contesting respondent has filed counter-affidavit on the allegations that the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 160 of the Act and, therefore, this Court should not hear this petition and the petitioner be relegated to the statutory remedy. On merits, it has been stated that the petitioner has failed to discharge her statutory obligation as she has not informed the Nagar Palika Parishad regarding alterations and constructions made by her. The contesting respondents initiated the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as soon as they came to know about the alterations/constructions made by the petitioner. The Tax Inspector was deputed for spot inspection who submitted a detailed report dated 11th August, 2000. From the said report it is clear that the petitioner has made new constructions/alterations and has been realizing the rent from the newly constructed shops from a period much earlier than 1995 itself, vide paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own default in not informing the answering respondent about the new constructions, specially in view of the fact that the rent receipts issued by the petitioner clearly demonstrate that she is charging house tax as well as water tax from the tenants in addition to monthly rent and even for a period prior to 1995 itself. Therefore, the respondents are justified in demanding the tax as per enhanced annual value of the building from the year 1995.

(3.) Heard Sri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that since a limited legal controversy is involved in the present case, therefore, the petitioner should not be relegated to the statutory remedy. The writ petition was admitted by this Court by the order dated 16th August, 2002 and some interim relief was granted. Elaborating the argument it was submitted by the petitioner that in view of sub-clause (4) to Section 147(1) of the Act, the liability to pay the tax on the basis of the enhanced annual value is from the date when the annual list is authenticated under the aforesaid provision.