CHENAB TEXTILE MILLS, KATHUA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for an appropriate writ, directions or order directing the State of Jammu and Kashmir to drop the proceedings against the petitioner for assessment of the Urban Immovable Property Tax on the land and buildings belonging to the petitioner and to proceed against the petitioner, if necessary, only in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, in this judgment) and to direct the Government to prescribe such matters as are required to be prescribed under that Act.

(2.) THE petition is a very long one covering a number of pages, most of the allegations contained, therein are factual and about the procedure adopted by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in dealing with the cases one of the petitioner for assessing the tax leviable upon him under the Act. The petition states that the Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Limited, which is the petitioner in this case, is a public limited company with its Head -Office at 15, India Exchange Place, Calcutta, that the petitioner has got a Cotton Textile Mills for manufacture of yarn at Kathua in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, called Chenab Textile Mills, that their property situate in Kathua is being taxed under the Act. The first attack of the petitioner is that Section 4 Sub -section (1) provides that tax shall not be leviable in respect of............ .....(f) such buildings and lands used for the purpose of a factory as may be prescribed The grievance is that "as may be prescribed" is redundant or otherwise also they are illegal as they constitute illegal delegation of legislative functions. The last words in Section 4 (g) namely or are not let out on rent" have been deleted by the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Immovable Property Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 and Section 24 of that amending Act made the amendment retrospective. Then section 24 is quoted. Another ground taken is that the Act was passed in the year 1962 when the petitioners mill was not in existence at all. Then reference to section 7 of the Act is made which pertains to the making and preparation of valuation list. The case of the petitioner is that though the Assessing authority has not prepared the draft valuation list and has not invited objections to the said list, the Assessing authority is now bent upon making the assessment of tax without following the required procedure as given in the Act. Then the procedure is mentioned and reference is made to certain correspondence referred to in the long paragraph No. 7 of the petition by the petitioner are that the notices issued by the Assessing Authority for filing objections to the alleged proposed entry are not in accordance with law, that objections can be invited only after the proposal is communicated to the petitioner and objections cannot be called in vacuum without disclosing the proposal, that the procedure adopted by the respondents 2 and 3 is flagrantly contrary to the Act and the established principles of natural justice. Under section II of the Act, tax can be levied in accordance with the valuation list in force for the time being. As upto date there is no entry in the valuation list in respect of the property of the petitioner, no tax is due for the past period. Four grounds are summarised on page 12 of the petition on which writ is sought and they are that :, -

(3.) A long rejoinder, have been filed on behalf of the respondents.