LAWS(ALL)-1959-9-14

GAI CHHAP BIRI DEPOT Vs. DISTRICT BOARD AZAMGARH

Decided On September 30, 1959
GAI CHHAP BIRI DEPOT Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT BOARD, AZAMGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution" of India by Messrs. Gai Chhap Biri Depot through Shiyam Sunder Agrawal, and also by Shiyam Sunder Agrawal in his personal capacity, for the issue of a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction, to quash the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Azamgarh, respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal against the assessment of circumstances and property tax on the petitioners was in substance dismissed. A request was also made that the taxes already paid by the petitioners be ordered to be refunded to them.

(2.) Shiyam Sunder Agrawal is one of the four proprietors of an unregistered firm by the name of Gai Chhap Biri Depot at Belasia, Azamgarh. The District Board of Azamgarh, respondent No. 1, had assessed circumstances and property tax amounting to Rs. 150/- on the firm Gai Chhap Biri Depot for the year 1953-54 and raised the assessment to Rs. 500/- per year for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56. The petitioners' case is that the firm had suffered a loss during the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 and for that reason no circumstances and property tax could be imposed. This is challenged by the District Board, Azamgarh, respondent No. 1, according to whom the account books of the petitioner-firm were not produced at the time of the assessment for the year 1954-55 and the account books produced at the time of the assessment for 1955-56 were not accepted by the Assessment Committee. The Additional District Magistrate, Azamgarh, respondent No. 2, has not recorded a finding in dear words, though he assessed the estimated income of petitioner-firm at Rs. 1000/- for each of the two years. It was for this reason that the tax imposed by the District Board for the two years was reduced to Rs. 437/8/6 per year. In proceedings under Article 226 High Court does not usually enter into controversial questions of facts and forms an opinion on consideration of broad features of the case. The petitioners have not pleaded enmity with any office bearer of the District Board and it therefore, appears difficult to accept that they would have acted arbitrarily to the prejudice of the petitioners. It also appears difficult to accept that the petitioners would have carried on the Biri business not for one year but for two years at a stretch, if the concern was suffering a loss. In the circumstances the finding of fact impliedly recorded by the Additional District Magistrate with regard to the income of the petitioners during the two years cannot be interfered with in the present proceeding.

(3.) Another point raised with regard to the assessment of circumstances and property tax is that no notice was served on the proprietors of the firm to enable them to oppose the enhancement of the tax. It was conceded that the notice was served on the Munim of the firm, not in his individual capacity but as the agent or employee of the firm. The service of notice on the Munim can, in such circumstances, be deemed to be on behalf of the proprietors. Further, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, he was the Munim and not the proprietors who preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate. There was thus no violation of the principles of natural justice.