BANWARILAL GUPTA Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11. 07. 05 of the concerned hearing Officer, appointed under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereafter the Act), whereby annual valuation of premises no. 20, Jatindra Mohan avenue, Kolkata (hereafter the said premises) has been assessed at Rs. 2,88,580/- w. e. f. 3rd quarter of 1988-89, at Rs. 3,27,430/- w. e. f. 3rd quarter of 1994-95 and at Rs. 3,96,790/- w. e. f. 3rd quarter of 2000-01. The sole ground on which such assessment has been challenged is that the petitioners were not put on notice and, therefore, had no opportunity to raise their objection in respect of the proposed valuation.

(2.) HOW far the claim of the petitioners is justified would necessitate this Court to note certain background facts as are evident from the petition and a registered sale deed, copy whereof was handed over to Court in course of hearing by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is claimed by the petitioners that by a deed of sale executed on 20. 09. 02, they purchased the said premises from the owner Todi Investments Limited (hereafter the vendor) of P-15, India Exchange place Extension, Kolkata. The deed was registered on 19. 12. 06. Bank of Baroda, having its Eastern Regional Office housed in the said premises, is a lessee thereof since 1. 1. 96 by virtue of a lease deed dated 24. 12. 96 executed by and between it and the vendor. Since the said premises falls within the jurisdiction of the kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the Corporation) and is assessed by it (Assessee No. 11-017-30-0063-0), all notices and tax bills were and are still being addressed to the vendor at P-15, India Exchange Place Extension, Kolkata. By a letter dated 3. 3. 05, one Din Dayal Agarwal, Advocate, acting on behalf of the petitioners, while informing the Assessor Collector (North) of the Corporation that the said premises had been rented to the Bank of Baroda which had been paying corporation taxes, made a request to record change of mailing address in terms of desire of his clients as indicated therein with a further request to confirm change of mailing address in respect of the said premises in the Corporation records. This letter, it is claimed by the petitioners, was followed by a reminder dated 4. 5. 05 issued by the said Advocate, addressed to the said Assessor collector, and purportedly sent under Certificate of Posting. It was recorded therein that his clients (the petitioners) had not received any tax bill or correspondence since the mailing address had not been changed in the corporation records in terms of the earlier request. In this letter, it was disclosed that the petitioners had purchased the said premises and registration of the deed, which had already been presented before the Registrar of Assurances, was pending. Copy of IGR dated 29. 10. 02 and photocopy of the conveyance deed purportedly were enclosed therewith to enable the Corporation to send the tax bills/correspondence to the mailing address in respect whereof change was sought for. This reminder was followed by silence on the part of the petitioners for little less than two years when the petitioner no. 1, by his letter dated 20. 3. 07, demanded justice from the Corporation in respect of ex-parte assessment of valuation of the said premises. It was alleged therein that no notice under section 186 of the Act had been received and as such no objection thereunder could be filed. A request was made to rescind/cancel the illegal and arbitrary assessment. Such an attempt having proved abortive, the present petition was filed by the petitioners.

(3.) ELABORATE submissions have been advanced by Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel representing the petitioners in respect of failure and/or neglect of the corporation to amend its records by inserting the changed mailing address as prayed for on their behalf by the said Advocate. It is his contention that by such failure or neglect, the Corporation has abridged the petitioners' rights as guaranteed under the Act to object against the proposed valuation to their utter detriment and prejudice. He laid stress on the definition of 'owner' in the Act to urge that the petitioners being the persons responsible for payment of property tax, they had a right of audience before valuation of the said premises was finally assessed by the concerned Hearing Officer. The valuation of the said premises having been assessed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned valuation with a direction to re-assess the valuation upon complying with the provisions of the Act.