RAJ KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has questioned the validity of the notice under Section 204 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') whereby the Chief Executive Officer had called upon him to pay arrears of municipal taxes within the stipulated time failing which steps were to be taken as per the provisions of Section 206 of the Act.

(2.) This is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of the building which lies within the jurisdiction of the Patna Municipal Corporation nor any dispute has been raised about quantum of demand. The only question which has been raised is as to what would be the period of limitation prescribed for recovery of arrears of holding tax due to the Municipal Corporation.

(3.) According to the petitioner, a bare reference to the impugned notice dated 4-12-1987 would indicate that a demand has been made for payment of dues with effect from 1-4-1978 to 31-12-1987. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions as enumerated under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, any demand beyond the period of three years from the date of the notice was barred by limitation. On the other hand the plea of respondent Corporation is that demand for payment of arrears of holding tax was validly made since the period of limitation for realisation of such dues would be 12 years as prescribed under Art. 62.