RAMAPATI ROY Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were the owners of premises No. P-8, cit Scheme XLII, Calcutta. There had been long standing dispute with regard to payment of property taxes payable by the appellants to the Corporation. The appellants challenged the notice of demand served upon them by the corporation in respect of the property taxes due to the period commencing from 1 st Quarter, 1995 to 4th Quarter, 1996. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the said notice of demand. They also challenged the vires of several provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The writ petition filed by the appellants being Matter No. 342 of 1996 was pending up till January, 2006 when the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge by judgment and order dated January 18, 2006 appearing at page 75 of the paper Book. During the pendency of the said writ petition the Corporation framed Waiver Scheme in 2001-2002. Being encouraged by its success the corporation repeated the same in 2004. The guidelines and the said scheme are appearing at pages 64-67 of the Paper Book. On perusal of the guidelines it appears that the Corporation decided to waive interest and penalty on the outstanding property taxes due up to March 31, 2003. The scheme, inter alia, provides that it would be an incentive in case of defaulting rate payers who would be willing to clear off the outstanding dues on bills presented up to 31st March, 2003. On a combined reading of the guidelines and the said scheme it clearly appears that the Corporation intended to waive interest and penalty to the extent mentioned therein. There was, however, no concession given in respect of the property taxes or any part of it outstanding as on the stipulated date. The appellants availed the said scheme and applied before the Corporation, inter alia, inquiring as to the exact amount of outstanding as on that date. The Corporation informed the appellants that there had been an outstanding to the extent of Rs. 14,84,81,941. 00 as on the stipulated date. The Corporation asked the appellants to pay a net sum of Rs. 15,59,401. 00 to avail the benefit of the Waiver Scheme. The appellants duly paid the said sum as would appear from the receipts annexed to the pleadings appearing at the paper Book. The Corporation, however, issued subsequent notices for a general revision, inter alia, for the period commencing from 3rd Quarter, 1990-91, 3rd Quarter, 1996-97, 3rd Quarter, 2002-03. The appellants filed an objection and prayed for personal hearing. The authority, after considering the objections raised by the appellants revised the annual valuation for the aforesaid periods.

(2.) IN the above backdrop the appellants approached the learned single judge by filing a writ petition, inter alia, praying for quashing of the said revision of valuation as well as the notices of demand issued as a consequence of such revision for the differential amount which became due by the appellant in view of such general revision. The learned single Judge by judgment and order dated March 12, 2008 appearing at pages 124-126 of the Paper Book, dismissed the writ petition. His Lordship held that such revision was done in accordance with law. Such revision was not affected by the Waiver Scheme referred to above. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition by observing that it was made on "entirely wrong premise". Hence, this appeal by the appellants.

(3.) DR. Debi Prosad Pal, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended before us that once the outstanding as on March 31, 2003 was paid by the appellants under the Waiver Scheme there could not have been any occasion for the Corporation to revalue for the period covered by the said scheme. Dr. Pal further contended that the Corporation being a public authority invited the defaulting tax payers to avail the benefit of the waiver Scheme and assured the tax payers that they would be given a clear discharge with regard to the outstanding as on that date. It would be unfair to allow a public body to resile from their promise and go on revising the valuation for the period covered under the Waiver Scheme. To support his contention dr. Pal cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s, Motilal Padampat sugar Mills Company Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in air 1979 SC 621. Dr. Pal highlighted the observations made by the Apex court appearing at head note-C of the said decision. The relevant extract is quoted below:-