BANARSI DAS MODI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Immovable property including machinery fixed therein belonging to the petitioner has been leased out by him to Messrs Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Modi Nagar at annual rental of Rs. 36,000/- since 1956. In 1957 this property was first assessed under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Assessing Authority under the Act. By order dated 19th October, 1957 (Copy annexure 'A' to the writ petition) the Assessing Authority reduced the annual rental value of the unit in question from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- after deducting the annual rental value of the machinery included in the property at 50 per cent. In an appeal filed against the said order by the petitioner, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner by his order dated 9th August, 1958 (copy annexure 'B' to the writ petition) further reduced the annual gross rental value of the assessable property to Rs. 8078/- by allowing a deduction of Rs. 27,922/- on account of machinery. After the expiry of the period of five years ending 30th September, 1962 which the above-said determination was valid, a fresh assessment had to be made under the Act for the next five years. It is admitted by the petitioner that he received a notice (copy annexure 'D') dated 11th May, 1961 to file a return within one month. The petitioner's case is that he duly filed the return in the prescribed form 'C' before the Assessing Authority Rating Area, Patiala on 8th June, 1961 and that he has got the acknowledgment of the office of that Authority bearing the same date. The petitioner has filed a copy of the said return as annexure 'E' to this petition. He states that his prayer to the respondents to furnish him with an attested copy of the return has been declined to him vide memo dated 25th October, 1963 of which a copy is annexure 'F'. On a reference to annexure 'F' however, it appears that the ground on which the District Excise and Taxation Officer, Patiala declined to furnish the requisite copy was that no Form C was furnished by the petitioner for the assessment years 1962-67. The respondents in their written statement have denied any such return having been filed. The question whether the requisite return was or was not filed and what is its effect has to be determined by the departmental authorities in appropriate proceedings. This is a disputed question of fact which I cannot be called upon to decide in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that a return filed by him in force C amounted to objection against the assessment in question. In this return (copy annexure 'E') the petitioner claimed in column 13 a deduction of Rs. 27,922/- for machinery and plant as per decision of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner during the previous period. The other objections contained in the return are not relevant for deciding this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that it was only in January, 1963 when he was supplied a copy of the relevant entry in the property register that he came to know that the unit in question had been assessed at Rs. 30,000/- after allowing a deduction of Rs. 6,000/- only as the value of the machinery out of the total gross lease money of Rs. 36,000/-. A Copy of the said entry has been filed by the petitioner as annexure 'H' to this writ petition.