MOHAMMAD FAROOQUE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Md. Farooque the appellant before us claims that he owns a property No. T-44A, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta and runs a guest house, in it. It yielded a gross amount of Rs.4,13,144/during the year 1986-87. His earnings from this came to Rs. 5000.00 per month approximately. In 1986, the valuation of the building was enhanced. The petitioner filed an objection. He received a notice from the assessor of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation requiring him to appear before Hearing Officer with evidence in support of his objection, under Section 188 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. He was required to appear on 5-6-1986. As he received the letter after the aforesaid date, he would not appear but wrote a letter on 7-6-1986, requesting the assessor to fix another date. The petitioner did not get any reply but received a bill in the month of July 1987. In that bill the valuation was fixed at Rupees 4,12,365/-. The petitioner was required to pay a net amount of Rs. 39,850.00 as tax. The petitioner approached this Court. An order was passed in the writ petition moved by him staying the enforcement of the bill and permitting Calcutta Municipal Corporation to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. He was thereupon informed that he would be heard on 6th Nov. 1986. The petitioner appeared before the Hearing Officer and submitted that the provisions of Section 174(4) of the Calcutta Municipal Act would be applicable and that the tax could not be determined under any other provision. The Hearing Officer, however, rejected this objection and assessed valuation of the premises at Rs. 3,03,210.00-. He again filed a writ petition against this order which petition was disposed of by Ld. Single Judge, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the assessment Tribunal. The petitioner came to know that the appeal would abate without hearing in case he did not deposit the enhanced tax due till the date of filing of appeal. This amount comes to Rs. 6,00,000.00. In this petition, the petitioner challenged the vires of provisions of Section 189(6) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and Rule 16 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules of 1987 as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution and asked for a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the authority not to give effect to these provisions.

(2.) The writ petitioner was heard and decided by the Ld. Single Judge who finding that the entire set of contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner had been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Calcutta reported in AIR 1992 SC 2279, and similar provisions were found to be valid, dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) Against this decision the petitioner has filed this appeal.