NARINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the position of Tax under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 on the building of the petitioner has been impugned by him on a number of grounds, yet iI find that in view of the two judgments of this Court, i.e. Inder Mohan v. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab and Others, 1962 2 ILR(P&H) 884 and Girdhari Lal Bhargawa v. State of Punjab, C.W.P. No. 350 of 1963 decided on March 3, 1965, this petition must succeed. It has been laid down in these two judgments that if a property is subject to the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, it cannot earn nor it can reasonably be expected to earn more rent than what that Act permits. It is, therefore, incumbent on the Assessing Authority to determine the annual rental value for the purpose of the assessment of the tax under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 with reference to the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Admittedly, no such course has been adopted by the Assessing Authorities for the imposition of the impugned tax. In the light of this, this petition succeeds and the tax proceedings culminating in the impugned orders (Annexures 'B' and 'E') are set aside. This, however, would not debar the authorities concerned from re-assessing the tax in accordance with law. I pass no order as to costs.