SMT. KIRAN Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) They are heard. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 30/10/2015((Annexure -P/5), passed by the respondent No.2 whereby he has reassessed the property tax in question at Rs.1,97,145/ - as against the self assessment tax paid by the petitioners at Rs.92,819/ - and after imposing five times penalty a demand of Rs.5,44,521/ - has been made against the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 10/09/2015, he submitted the self assessment return for the year 2015 -2016 and accordingly assessed the property tax to the tune of Rs.88,325/ - and paid the property tax to the respondent on 10/09/2015. He submitted that no show cause notice was issued before passing the order dated 30/10/2015. The petitioner's premises was inspected in presence of the petitioner but after panchanama he refused to sign the same. He further drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sayaji Hotels Ltd. Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation & Anr., decided on 2/02/2016(W.P. No.7701/2015) wherein also penalty of five times was imposed and this Court considering the fact that order imposing penalty is in violation of principle of natural justice, directed the respondents to take appropriate action by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why five times penalty be not impose and after granting opportunity to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in the matter. He has further drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Committee of Management Anr. v. Vice Chancellor & Ors.[AIR 2009 SC 1159], and prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

(3.) In reply, Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after self assessment, reassessment of the Annual Letting Value of the subject property was done and since the variation was found to be more than 10% as per the provisions of Rule 11 of the M.P. Municipality(Determination of Annual Letting Value of Building/Lands) Rules, 1997, a penalty has been imposed on the petitioner and efficacious remedy of filing statutory appeals before the Mayor -in -Council(against the penalty order) and before the District Court(against the assessment) are available to the petitioner. (See: - Sakhi Gopal Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2004(1) MPLJ 390). He further submitted that the petitioners ought to have filed statutory appeals. On merit, he submitted that the matter involves disputed question of facts which cannot be determined by way of this petition and on the ground of alternative remedy, the petition is liable to be dismissed.