METAFOLD INDUSTRIES REGD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 4308 of 1981 (Om Parkash Puri v. The Municipal Corporation) No. 4889 of 984 (Rameshwar Dass v. Commissioner), No. 5267 of 1984 (Mulkh Raj Wadhawan v. Commissioner), No. 426 of 1985 (M/s Nand Kishore Chaman Lal v. The Commissioner) No. 1603 of 1985 (Surjit Singh v. Commissioner) and No. 1773 of 1985 (Harbhajan Singh v. Municipal Corporation). In all these matters the question raised pertains to the fixing of annual rateable value of the properties in cases where the location of the property situated is governed by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4889 of 1984 and 1773 of 1985 are the matters in which the assessment of the rental value of the property has been ascertained under the provisions of Section 66 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4308 of 1981, 426 of 1985 and 5256 of 1984 are the matters in which the assessment of the annual rateable value was made under Section 93 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. CWP 2884 of 1981 is also a matter falling under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. In all these matters annual rateable value of the building of the petitioner was fixed and notice for the recovery of the tax were accordingly issued. The petitioners had made representation to the Municipal Committee, which was turned down. Appeal to the Commissioner also did not give relief to the petitioners. Therefore, these petitioners have now rushed to the Court by filing writ petitions. In case governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the petitioners approached the Municipal Committee, but in vain. Appeal under section 84 of the said Act was also futile. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions challenging the correctness or otherwise of the assessment.

(2.) In case of CWP 2884 of 1981, the contention was that without serving a notice upon the petitioner the annual rateable value was assessed and bill was served. After service of the bill, he approached to the Municipal Corporation but in vain. According to the petitioner since his annual rateable value was fixed without any previous notice to the petitioner, there was no opportunity to him to make representation in response to service of such notice, and further to file appeal on any such decision. The Municipal Corporation in the written statement submitted that such a notice was served on the petitioner before assessment of annual ratable value was fixed.

(3.) In all these matters the question basically pertain to the fixation of annual rateable value of the premises at places where the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act is in force the second question raised is since when such increased tax would be deemed to have been applicable in view of provisions of Section 66 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.