PUNJAB ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of a batch of four writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.3365 of 2010, 20391 of 2011, 12240 of 2011 and 3891 of 2013 as the basic issue involved in all these four cases is same. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.3365 of 2010.

(2.) The petitioner is the Limited Company, assailing the order of assessment, for the period 1995-96 to 2007-08, passed by the Municipal council (respondent No.1) along with Bills (196 Nos.) dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P.10) by which respondent No.1 has re-assessed the Annual Letting Value and House Tax on the Residential Units in the Housing Colony of the petitioner-Company by order dated 8.7.2008, upheld vide order of the Appellate Authority dated 25.8.2009.

(3.) The facts given to me in Court, while dictating the order, are that the petitioner has a manufacturing unit at Naya Nangal. It has a housing colony for the purpose of residence of its employees posted at its manufacturing unit. The residential units comprises different categories for its workers/ officers, namely, quarters for workers, HIG Type Houses and Executive Houses. The respondents earlier assessed the house tax on the said residential units on the basis of capital cost of the said houses taken on block basis for different types of houses and levied the house tax for Worker Houses (72 Nos. - Rs. 22,722.45), HIG Type Houses (72 Nos. - Rs. 27,291.45) and Executive Houses (6 Nos. - Rs. 13,210.35). The petitioner has been paying the house tax on the aforesaid residential units as per the above-mentioned rate for the year 1999-2000 but at the same time, challenged the determination of Annual Rental Value and house tax of the said residential units by filing appeals every year. The appeals upto the years 1998-99 were adjourned sine die by the Courts because the question as to whether the assessment of the residential quarters situated in a row/block has to be done by treating the building as one building or separate buildings was pending for consideration of the Apex Court in CA Nos. 3830-34 of 1990 (Notified Area Committee, Nangal Township v. Bhakra Beas Management Board). The Supreme Court settled the matter regarding assessment of house tax on houses in a row constructed by an employer and occupied by its employees holding that the word 'building' as applicable in respect of residential quarters would mean each individual house situated in a row of quarters or block and the Assessing Authority can not club all the quarters/ bungalows in the block together and term that as a building for the purpose of levying house tax under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, 'the Act'). The appeal filed by the petitioner against the levy of house tax for the year 1999-2000 came up for hearing before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ropar in December, 2000, who vide his order dated 30.1.2001, allowed the said appeals, regarding assessment of House Tax for the year 1999-2000 and quashed the assessment made by the Municipal Council and directed the Municipal Council to re-assess the annual rental value of the residential quarters and make fresh assessment of house tax in light of the said judgment of the Supreme Court. For the subsequent years 2000-01 and onwards, respondent No.1 made the assessment of house tax in the light of the said judgment of the Supreme Court for the individual property. The petitioner filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority in respect of the years prior to 1999-2000 which were adjourned sine die but the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 30.3.2006 directed the Muncipal Council to re-assess the house tax. Respondent No.1 vide notice dated 17.8.2006, issued under Section 173 of the Act, asked the details of the quarters, rent being charged and HRA deducted from the employees to whom quarters were allotted. The petitioner vide its letter dated 25.8.2006 provided the details of houses/ quarters allotted to its employees and amount deducted as license fee from them. Respondent No.1 issued identical 196 notices on 6.11.2007 under Section 67(3) of the Act proposing re-assessment of the House Tax for the period 1995-96 to 2007-08 and invited objections. The petitioner submitted their objections on 4.12.2007. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority passed the impugned order on 8.7.2008 holding that the relationship between the petitioner and the employees was of landlord and tenant as the petitioner itself has alleged that they have been deducting 10% as house rent from the basic pay of the employees and thus assessed the annual rental value of Rs. 1,75,338/- under Section 67(3) of the Act on 6.11.2007 for the years 1995-96 and 2007-08. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal under Section 84 of the Act before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, exercising power of the Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar. All the 196 appeals were disposed of by the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 and as a result thereof, the present petitions have been filed in which all the 196 notices have been challenged.