FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P -5) dated 30.5.1980 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, whereby he quashed the order passed by the Administrator, Faridabad Complex Administration, Faridabad assessing the property of respondent No. 3 to a value of Rs. 3,10,111/ - for the purpose of house -tax for the year 1979 -80 as well as the demand notice issued by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has been established under the Faridabad Complex (Regulations and Development) Act, 1971 (for short the 1971 Act). Under Sec. 22 of the 1971 Act, the petitioner submitted a proposal to the State Government for imposing tax on the land and buildings situated within the limits of the petitioner at the rate of 10 per cent of the annual value of the properties as defined in the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short, the 1973 Act). This proposal was accepted by the Government as would appear from the notification Annexure P -1 dated 30.7.1975. Thereafter, a notice dated 25.6.1979 was issued to the respondent No. 3 Under Sec. 78 of the 1973 Act calling upon it to show cause as to why its property be not assessed at Rs. 3,10,111/ -. Respondent No. 3 submitted its objection vide Annexure P -2 and pleaded that it was not liable to be assessed for tax being a research institute established for purely scientific research and educational purpose. The Assessing Authority passed the order dated 20.8.1979 (Annexure P -3) and rejected the objection of respondent No. 3 on the ground the objection was not against the amount of assessment but against the assessment itself. This was followed by a demand notice dated 20.11.1979 calling upon the respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 31,011.10 as house tax for the year 1979 -80. This notice was served upon respondent No. 3 on 22.11.1979. On 19.12.1979 respondent No. 3 filed an appeal Under Sec. 100 of the 1973 Act. After giving notice to the petitioner and hearing the parties, the respondent No. 1 accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.3 and quashed the assessment as well as demand notice.

(3.) Principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 on 19.12.1979 was a barred by time in so far as the order Annexure P -3 is concerned because an appeal could be filed against the order of assessment within thirty days, whereas the appeal was filed after almost four months of the passing of the order and no prayer for condonation of delay was made and that although this point was specifically raised before the Appellate Authority the said authority has not at all decided the objection raised by the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that the order Annexure P -3 was passed in the presence of the representative of the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, he must be deemed to be aware of the contents of the order passed by the Assessing Authority and therefore, there could be no justification for overlooking the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the appeal. Learned counsel argued that in the appeal. Learned counsel argued that in the appeal (Annexure P -4) the respondent No. 3 did not challenge the order of assessment and therefore, the appellate authority was not justified in quashing the assessment order learned counsel further argued that respondent No. 3 cannot claim exemption in terms of proviso (1) of the scheme appended to the notification (Annexure P -l) because it is not a registered educational institution. According to the learned counsel the respondent No. 3 is purely a research institute established by those engaged in the manufacture of cement and such institution cannot claim itself to be an educational Institution.