Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. CMC — 1997 DIGILAW 364 (CAL)

ORDER 1. Premises No. 16, Strand Road, Calcutta 700 001 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) is owned by the respondent no.9, Strand Properties Ltd. A portion of the said premises has been taken on lease than the respondent no.9 by the writ petitioner by virtue of a deed of lease executed on 11.1.1983. The annual lease rent payable by the writ petitioner for the said portion is Rs. 5,41,881/-. In terms of the said lease, the writ petitioner was permitted to sublet any portion of its leasehold premises. The writ petitioner has inducted 12 sub-tenants in the portion in respect of which lease has been executed in favour of the writ petitioner and one of such sub-tenant is the Steel Authority of India who has also moved a writ application which was heard analogously and the common judgment is being passed today. 2. A notice under section 217 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) demanding a sum of Rs. 6,82,69,457 from the writ petitioner-company was received by it. Challenging the said notice a civil suit was filed by the writ petitioner against the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities for a declaration that the writ petitioner was not liable to pay municipal rates and taxes of the said premises to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities and for permanent injunction and for other incidental reliefs. During the pendency of the suit a petition under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities on or about 31st May, 1996. From the said petition it is however, evident that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation admitted that owing to mistake the notice under section 217(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 has been served on the plaintiff. It was further stated that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation admitted that the plaintiff who is the writ petitioner in this writ petition was not liable to pay municipal rates and taxes of the said premises, as a tenant except by due application of the process of law. On the basis of the aforesaid admission, it was prayed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities that the suit be disposed of on admission. On the basis of the aforesaid admission, it was prayed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities that the suit be disposed of on admission. Accordingly, by Order No. 12 dated 12th June, 1996 the suit was decreed on admission and the writ petitioner was declared to be not liable for payment of any tax to the Corporation for premises no.16, Strand Road, Calcutta 700 001 except by due application of the process of law. On 21st March, 1997 persons claiming to be the officers of the Collection Department of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation demanded all arrears of municipal taxes from the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, the officers of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation claimed that they had come to execute a distress warrant to realise arrears of municipal taxes. The writ petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that no notice regarding such distress and/or warrant was however. served on the writ petitioner. On 21st March, 1997 the writ petitioner moved a petition before the Judge, 7th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in connection with the aforesaid Title Suit and the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta passed an order to the effect that the Corporation and its men and agents be restrained from executing the distress warrant against the writ petitioner. It is admitted by the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was compelled to issue four post-dated cheques in favour of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner has alleged that the above cheques were obtained under coercion and duress. According to the writ petitioner, they are not liable to pay any tax in respect of the said premises which are to be paid by the respondent no.9, Lloyds Register of Shipping and, therefore, this writ petition has been moved by them for a direction upon the respondent to cancel, rescind and withdraw any order or direction for recovery of consolidated rates etc. from the writ petitioner in respect of the said premises and further to forbear from presenting for encashment four cheques being issued by the writ petitioner-company under compulsion and not to take any steps whether coercive or otherwise for recovery of alleged arrears of consolidated rates of the above premises from the writ petitioner and for other incidental reliefs. This writ petition of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. This writ petition of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. and another was heard by me at length. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved and the same was placed for judgment on 11th July, 1997. When the matter was appearing for judgment, the other writ petitioner viz. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another which is a sub-tenant under the writ petitioner Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. moved another writ application before me, challenging the notices dated 18th December, 1995 and 21st of March, 1997 which are Annexure 'B' and 'E' to the said writ petition, and for other incidental reliefs. In the writ petition filed on behalf of the Steel Authority of India, the writ petitioner Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. has been made a party-respondent. In the writ petition filed by the Steel Authority of India, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. has challenged the demand notices being Annexure 'B' and 'E' on the ground that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities are not liable to recovery the demands made in Annexure 'B' and 'E' to the writ petition as under the relevant provisions of the Act, it was respondent no.5 who are liable to meet the said demands of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities. According to the Steel Authority of India Ltd., the demands being Annexure 'B' and 'E' are absolutely illegal and arbitrary in as much as the requirement under section 225 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act cannot be made applicable in the case of Steel Authority of India when no rent had fallen due so far as the Steel Authority of India was concerned. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. in their writ petition further alleged that under section 225 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, the notice may be served on the occupier requiring him to pay to the Corporation any rent due or falling due from him, on the failure to recover any sum from the person primarily liable under section 217(1) of the Act. According to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. as there was no rent due or falling due as contemplated under section 225 of the Act, the purported demand dated 18th December, 1995 was bad in law and, therefore, the entire action of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities in demanding 12 month's rents was illegal and unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and accordingly, the Steel Authority of India has moved the said writ application praying for setting side the demands made by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities which are Annexure 'B' and 'E' to the writ petition and for other reliefs. 3. I have heard Mr. Roy for Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. and Dr. Paul for the Steel Authority of India Ltd. I have heard Mr. Das Adhikari who had appeared for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after examining the questions raised before me by the respective parties, I am of the view that the writ petitions have no merit and both the writ petitions should be rejected. Reasons are as follows:- Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has submitted before me that the writ petitioners cannot be made liable to pay the consolidated rates in respect of the aforesaid premises as the respondent no.9, Lloyds Register of Shipping is liable to pay such tax in respect of the said premises. Mr. Roy in the alternative has contended that even assuming that the writ petitioner is also liable to pay the consolidated rate of taxes, even then such tax cannot be recovered from them without service of notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this connection, Mr. Roy has referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and particularly sections 193, 194 and 195 sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act and also the relevant provisions relating to issuance of distress warrant under the Act. Mr. Roy, after taking me through sections 214, 217, 219, 220 and 231 read with sections 546 and 547 of the Act submitted that the writ petitioner cannot be proceeded with in view of the aforesaid provision of the Act. In this connection, Mr. Mr. Roy, after taking me through sections 214, 217, 219, 220 and 231 read with sections 546 and 547 of the Act submitted that the writ petitioner cannot be proceeded with in view of the aforesaid provision of the Act. In this connection, Mr. Roy also relied on Rule 33 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Taxation Rules and on a reading of these provisions, he' contended that no action could be taken either to attach the properties of the writ petitioner or to recover such consolidated rate from them without taking recourse to the aforesaid provisions of the Act. In support of this contention, Mr. Roy has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Agarwala vs. CMC, 1996 (2) CLJ 518. Mr. Roy also contended that in view of the decree passed by the Civil Court on admission against the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities which is binding on the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities, question of recovery of consolidated rates from the writ petitioner cannot arise at all and, therefore, in view of the fact that the decree has already been passed against the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities, it was not open to them to take steps to recover consolidated rates in respect of the said premises until and unless the said decree of the Civil Court is set aside. 4. Mr. Das Adhikari, appearing for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities, however, submitted that question of service of notice on the tenant under the relevant provisions of the Act cannot arise at all that is to say, a tenant of a premises is not entitled to receive notice relating to the presentation of bills by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities in respect of payment of consolidated rate of the premises under the relevant provisions of the Act. In support of this contention, Mr. Das Adhikari has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Kanoria Properties Ltd. vs. Calcutta Municipality, AIR 1973 Cal 488 . Relying on Paragraph 2 of the same, Mr. Das Adhikari contended that the writ petitioner being a tenant of the premises is not entitled to the notice relating to presentation of bill under section 193 of the Act. Records relating to this case were produced by Mr. Das Adhikari. Relying on Paragraph 2 of the same, Mr. Das Adhikari contended that the writ petitioner being a tenant of the premises is not entitled to the notice relating to presentation of bill under section 193 of the Act. Records relating to this case were produced by Mr. Das Adhikari. Referring to the records at pages 22 and 24 of the same and after taking me through section 193 sub-sections (1) and (4) of the Act, Mr. Das Adhikari submitted that there was no question of giving any relief to the writ petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as the admission made by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in the Civil Suit filed by the writ petitioner against them is concerned, Mr. Das Adhikari submitted that the admission that was made in the said suit clearly shows that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities shall not proceed in pursuance of the notice of demand under section 217 of the Act except under the due process of law. Therefore, Mr. Das Adhikari contended that such admission cannot stand in the way of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities from realising the taxes by proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In support of this contention regarding admission, Mr. Das Adhikari has relied on two decisions of the two different High Courts reported in I.T. Officer vs. Sambhoo Dayal & Co., AIR 1968 All 203 and Bar, Das, Dey & Company vs. Sib Thakur Jiu, AIR 1969 Cal 565 . So far as the decision in the case of Ratanlal Agarwala vs. CMC, 1996 (2) CLJ 518, on which Mr. Roy relied on is concerned, Mr. Das Adhikari contended that the said decision has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. For the purpose of distinguishing the said decision, Mr. Das Adhikari has taken me through a decision of the Supreme Court in Trigon's case reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Trigon Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., 1996(3) SCC 630 . 5. Let me now take up the submission of Mr. Roy in seriatim. Before I take up the submission of Mr. Das Adhikari has taken me through a decision of the Supreme Court in Trigon's case reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Trigon Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., 1996(3) SCC 630 . 5. Let me now take up the submission of Mr. Roy in seriatim. Before I take up the submission of Mr. Roy for consideration, I feel it necessary to consider the provisions enumerated in the Act regarding the powers of the Authorities in respect of taxation and consolidated rates payable by an assessee who is either an owner or an occupier of the premises in question. Chapter XII deals with powers of taxation and consolidated rates. For the purpose of dealing with the questions raised in this writ application, it would not be necessary to refer to sections 170 to 191. Let me, therefore, confine myself to the relevant provisions of the Act which would be required for the purpose of deciding the writ petitions. 6. Chapter XII (G) deals with incidence and payment of consolidated rate on lands and buildings. Section 193 of the Act deals with incidence of consolidated rate on lands and buildings. 7. Section 193 sub-section (1) of the Act says that the consolidated rate on lands and building's shall be primarily leviable:- (a) If the land or building is let, upon the lessor. (b) If the land or building is sublet, upon the superior lessor. (c) If the land or building is unlet, upon the person in whom the right to let such land or building vests. 8. Section 193 sub-section (2) of the Act however, says that the consolidated rate on any land or building, which is the property of the Corporation and the possession of which has been delivered under any agreement or licensing arrangement, shall be leviable upon the transferee or the licensee as the case may be. 9. Section 193 sub-section (3) of the Act deals with the liability of the several owners of any land or building constituting a single unit of assessment. 10. Section 194 of the Act deals with apportionment of liability for consolidated rate on land or building when the premises assessed are let or sublet. Section 195 is in my view, important for the purpose of deciding this case. It deals with recovery of consolidated rate on lands and buildings from occupiers. 10. Section 194 of the Act deals with apportionment of liability for consolidated rate on land or building when the premises assessed are let or sublet. Section 195 is in my view, important for the purpose of deciding this case. It deals with recovery of consolidated rate on lands and buildings from occupiers. Sub-section (1) of section 195 of the Act clearly says that on the failure to recover any sum due on account of consolidated rate on any land or building from the person primarily liable therefor under section 193, the Municipal Commissioner shall. notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 or in any other law for the time being in force, recover from every occupier of such land or building, by attachment of the rent payable by such occupier, a portion of the total sum due which bears, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to that sum as the rent annually payable by such occupier bears to the total amount of rent annually payable in respect of the whole of such land or building. Sub-section (2) of section 195 clearly provides that an occupier, from whom any sum is recovered under sub-section (1), shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable for the payment of such sum, and may in addition to having recourse to other remedies that may be open to him, deduct the amount so recovered from the amount of any rent becoming due from time to time from him to such person. 11. Chapter XVI of the Act deals with recovery and payment of taxes by the Corporation. 12. Section 214 of the Act provides for procedure for recovery of taxes under the Act. Section 214 of the Act says that any tax levied under this Act may be recovered in accordance with the following procedure and in such manner as may be prescribed:- (a) By presenting a bill. (b) By serving a notice of demand. (c) By distraint and sale of a defaulter's movable property. (d) By the attachment and sale of a defaulter's immovable property. (e) In the case of consolidated rate on lands and buildings, by the attachment of rent due in respect of the land or the building. (f) By a certificate under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. 13. (c) By distraint and sale of a defaulter's movable property. (d) By the attachment and sale of a defaulter's immovable property. (e) In the case of consolidated rate on lands and buildings, by the attachment of rent due in respect of the land or the building. (f) By a certificate under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. 13. Section 217 deals with notice of demand, notice fee, interest and penalty. It says that if the amount of the tax for which a bill has been presented under section 216, is not paid within thirty days from the presentation thereof or if the tax on professions, trades and callings or the tax on advertisements is not paid after it has become due, the Municipal Commissioner may cause to be served upon the person liable for the payment of the same a notice of demand in such form as may be specified by the Corporation by regulations. 14. Section 219 of the Act deals with recovery of tax. It says that if any person liable for payment of tax does not, within thirty days (of the service of notice of demand under section 217) pay the amount due, such together with all costs, interest due and penalty may be recovered under a warrant, issued in such form as may be specified by the Corporation by regulations (by disress and sale of the movable property). 15. Section 220 of the Act deals with distress. It says that it shall be lawful for any officer or other employee of the Corporation to whon1 a warrant issued under this Chapter is addressed to distrain, wherever, it may be found in any place in Calcutta, any moveable property belonging to the person (liable), subject to the following conditions exceptions and exemptions, mentioned in section 220(1) (a) to (b) of the Act. 16. Section 225 of the Act provides that occupiers may be required to pay rent towards satisfaction of consolidated rates. 16. Section 225 of the Act provides that occupiers may be required to pay rent towards satisfaction of consolidated rates. Section 225(1) says that for the purposes of recovery of any consolidated rate from any occupier under section 195, the Municipal Commissioner, notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force, shall cause to be served on such occupier a notice requiring him to pay to the Corporation any rent due or falling due from him in respect of the land or building to the extent necessary to satisfy the portion of the sum due for which he is liable under the said section. 17. Section 225(2) says that such notice shall operate as an attachment of such rent unless the portion of the same due shall have been paid and satisfied, and the occupier shall be entitled to credit in account with the person to whom such rent is due for any sum paid by him to the Corporation in pursuance of such notice:- Proviso to section 225(2) of the Act however provides that if the person to whom such runt is due is not the person primarily liable for payment of the consolidated rate, he shall be entitled to recover from the person primarily liable for the payment of such tax any amount for which credit is claimed as aforesaid. 18. Section 225(3) says that if any occupier fails to pay to the Corporation any rent due or falling due which he has been required to pay in pursuance of a notice served upon him as aforesaid, the amount of such rent may be recovered from him by the Corporation as an arrear of tax under this Act. 19. Section 231 of the Act deals with mode of recovery. It says that if any person is primarily liable to pay any consolidated rate on any land or building and is entitled to recover any sum from an occupier of such land or building, he shall have, for recovery thereof, the same rights and remedies as if such sum were rent payable to him by the person from whom he is entitled to recover such sum. Section 546 of the Act confers power on the Municipal Commissioner or any person authorised by him to break into the building and section 547 deals with time of making entry. Section 546 of the Act confers power on the Municipal Commissioner or any person authorised by him to break into the building and section 547 deals with time of making entry. 20. From the different provisions of the Act as indicated above, the following facts shall emerge:- (1) The consolidated rate and taxes shall be primarily leviable on the person mentioned in section 193(1) of the Act. (2) On the failure to recover any sum due on account of consolidated rate of any land or building from the person primarily liable, therefore under section 193, the Commissioner shall recover such consolidated rate and taxes from every occupier of such land or building by attachment of the rent payable by such occupier. 21. The user of the word every occupier of such land or building means in my view all the occupiers of such land or the building. Therefore, on a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act relating to realisation of consolidated rate and taxes, it is clearly evident that primarily the persons named in section 193(1) of the Act would be liable to pay such consolidated rate and taxes in respect of any land or building. But, if there is a failure to recover any sum due on account of such consolidated rate on any land or building from the person primarily liable, it is open to the Authorities to recover such consolidated rate from every occupier of such land or building by attachment of the rent payable by such occupier. As section 195(2) of the Act gives a right to an occupier from whom any sum is recovered under sub-section (1) to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable for the payment of such sum, it is clearly evident that on failure to recover any sum from the person primarily liable, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation can proceed against every occupier in respect of the land and building in question. 22. Relying on section 195(1) of the Act, Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that at best the rent payable by the writ petitioner to his landlord in respect of the portion in which the writ petitioner is in occupation can be attached and, therefore, the question of recovery of the sum from the sub-tenants of the writ petitioner cannot arise at all. In my view, this submission of Mr. In my view, this submission of Mr. Roy on consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act, cannot be accepted. As noted here-in-earlier, section 195 sub-section (1) of the Act confers power on the Municipal Commissioner to recover any sum due on account of consolidated rate on any land or building from every occupier of such land or building by attachment of the rent payable by such occupier. In the present case, it would appear from the writ petition that at least 12 companies are having their offices in premises no.16, Strand Road and they have been inducted by the writ petitioner in the said premises. Therefore, in view of section 195(1) of the Act all the rents payable by such occupiers including the writ petitioner can be attached by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities in terms of section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, I am unable to agree with Mr. Roy that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities have acted without jurisdiction by taking steps to recover the consolidated rate from the tenants of the writ petitioner by attaching the rents of the sub-tenants payable to the writ petitioner. That apart, since section 195(2) of the Act clearly confers power on those persons to recover such amount paid by them to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities the amount of such consolidated rate in respect of the building can be recovered not only from the writ petitioner but also from the sub-tenants of the writ petitioner. That being the position, I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Roy that the rent payable by the occupiers, being the sub-tenants of the writ petitioner cannot be attached by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. 23. It was next contended by Mr. Roy in support of this writ application that since the writ petitioner had not received any rate bills under the relevant provisions of the Act for which demands have been made, the writ petitioner had no obligation to make any payment to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities without presentation of the rate bills on them. I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Roy. In this case, admittedly, the tax levied in respect of the premises in question was tried to be recovered not by presenting bills but by serving a notice of demand by taking steps to attach the rent in respect of the building in question. I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Roy. In this case, admittedly, the tax levied in respect of the premises in question was tried to be recovered not by presenting bills but by serving a notice of demand by taking steps to attach the rent in respect of the building in question. The records relating to this case have been produced by the learned advocate fen the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. From a perusal of the said record, it is dear that a notice was served on the writ petitioner in respect of the payment of dues of the consolidated rate and taxes relating to the premises in question. Therefore, I do not think it fit to go into the question whether the writ petitioner was entitled under the Act to get a notice of demand, as in fact, a notice was issued demanding consolidated rate and taxes in respect of the premises in question from the writ petitioner. Furthermore, the question whether or not the rate bills have been sent or presented to the writ petitioner in this case raises a disputed question of fact of such a nature which would not be appropriate to decide in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reference can be made to the case of Kanoria Properties Ltd. vs. Calcutta Municipality, AIR 1973 Cal 488 . Mr. Roy thereafter contended that in view of the judgment on admission passed in the civil suit challenging the valuation under section 217 of the Act, it is not open to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities to proceed against the writ petitioner for recovery of consolidated rates and taxes in respect of the premises in question. According to Mr. Roy, it has been categorically admitted in the aforesaid suit by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities that the notice under section 217 of the Act was improper, illegal and therefore, no effect should be given to it excepting in due course of law. In view of this admission, Mr. Roy contended that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities cannot proceed against the writ petitioner for recovery of consolidate rate and taxes payable in respect of the premises in question. In my view, this submission of Mr. Roy in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot also be accepted. In view of this admission, Mr. Roy contended that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities cannot proceed against the writ petitioner for recovery of consolidate rate and taxes payable in respect of the premises in question. In my view, this submission of Mr. Roy in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot also be accepted. From a plain reading of the judgment on admission passes in the civil suit, it would appear that the question of proceeding against the writ petitioner by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities shall not arise excepting by taking recourse to process of law. Therefore, in my view this judgment of admission delivered in the civil suit cannot bind the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities to proceed against the writ petitioner for realisation of the consolidated rate and taxes in respect of the premises in question by taking recourse to law. Even assuming such judgment binds the writ petitioner, even then it can be safely held that no amount of admission contrary to law could create estoppel against the writ petitioner. Reference can be made to a Single Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court ill the case of Bar, Das, Dey & Company vs. Sib Thakur Jiu, AIR 1969 Cal 565 . A single bench decision was cited by Mr. Roy to satisfy me that question of distress warrant shall not arise until the bills are presented to the writ petitioners or any notice of demand is served on the writ petitioner. This decision as cited by Mr. Roy is reported in Ratanlal Agarwala vs. CMC, 1996 (2) CLJ 518. In my view, this decision cannot be relied in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that decision, the question was whether a notice can be served under section 219 of the Act without serving any notice of demand under section 217 of the Act and without presentation of the bills on the writ petitioners who were admittedly persons liable to pay such consolidated rates and taxes, In the present case the writ petitioner are not the persons primarily liable for such recovery of consolidated rate and taxes but they are persons liable to pay, if there is failure on the part of the persons primarily liable to pay such consolidated rate and bills. Therefore, in my view, this decision cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. 24. Dr. Therefore, in my view, this decision cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. 24. Dr. Paul, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner Steel Authority of India vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others also contended that in view of section 217 of the Act, the bill had to be presented under section 216 of the Act on the Steel Authority of India and in case the amount indicated in the notice under section 216 of the Act is not paid within 30 days from the presentation thereof, the Municipal Commissioner may cause to be served upon the person liable for the payment of the same a notice of demand in such form as may be specified by the Corporation by regulations. Therefore, Dr. Paul contended that in view of section 217 of the Act, it was mandatory on the part of the C.M.C. authorities to present the bill and thereafter for non-payment notice of demand has to be served upon the writ petitioner. I have already discussed the position in law in respect of presentation of bill and notice of demand to be served on the tenants or sub-tenants who are not primarily liable to pay taxes in respect of which they are the tenants or sub-tenants of the premises in question. At the risk of repetition in this connection, I may readily refer to section 214 of the Act which deals with the manner of recovery of tax under the Act. Five modes have been prescribed for the purpose of recovery of tax from the person liable to pay such taxes. Section 214(a), (b), (c) and (d) prescribe different modes out of which section 214(a) prescribes the mode by presenting a bill. All the aforesaid modes prescribed under section 214 of the Act are alternative to each other. That is to say one of the modes could be followed by the Authorities for the purpose of recovery of taxes under the Act. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that section 214(a) of the Act has been followed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities. Therefore, this is not a case where the procedure has been followed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities by presenting a bill for the purpose of recovery of taxes under the Act. That being the position, I am unable to agree with the submission of Dr. Therefore, this is not a case where the procedure has been followed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities by presenting a bill for the purpose of recovery of taxes under the Act. That being the position, I am unable to agree with the submission of Dr. Paul that in view of section 217 of the Act, it was mandatory on the part of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities to present a bill and thereafter if the notice of demand is not paid within 30 days from the date of presentation of bill, it would be open to C.M.C. Authorities to proceed against the Steel Authority of India. It is also dear from a plain reading of section 217 of the Act that the said section can be applied only in respect of the amount of Tax, for which a bill has been presented under section 216 of the Act. I have already held that the procedure provided in 214(a) of the Act was not at all followed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities in this case. Therefore, the question of presentation of bill and service of notice of demand for non-payment of the amount indicated in the bill shall not arise at all. Dr. Paul relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mrityunjoy vs. Ashutosh, 58 CWN 410 and contended that a distress warrant can only be issued only if the rate bill is presented to the rate payer in question to start with and he has been further served with the demand notice which is to be accompanied with a copy of the rate bill already served. As in this case no rate bill has been presented to the writ petitioner the question of issuing distress warrant cannot at all arise. In my view, this decision of this Court related to the Act which prevailed before the new Act had come into force. By the introduction of the new Act, it has been made clear when a bill has to be presented under the new Act. In view of the discussions made hereinabove that section 214 prescribes different modes which are alternative to each other, the question of presenting a bill under the new Act cannot arise at all when the Calcutta Municipal Corporation are entitled to proceed against the petitioners in terms of section 214(e) of the Act. In view of the discussions made hereinabove that section 214 prescribes different modes which are alternative to each other, the question of presenting a bill under the new Act cannot arise at all when the Calcutta Municipal Corporation are entitled to proceed against the petitioners in terms of section 214(e) of the Act. In any view of the matter, the writ petitioner is not the rate payer and accordingly, the applicability of this decision does not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of this case. Reliance was also placed by Dr. Paul in the case of Administrator, Uttarpara-Kotrang Municipality vs. Girija, AIR 1971 Cal 207 . In view of my discussions made hereinabove, I am also of the view for the reasons given above, this Division Bench decision of this Court also cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. That apart, from the records, it appears that the notice has been duly served upon the writ petitioner. That being the position, I am unable to agree with the submission of Dr. Paul on the aforesaid question. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 also specifically entitles the occupier to credit an account with the person to whom such rent is due for any sum paid by him to the Corporation in pursuance of the notice under section 225(2) of the Act. Proviso to section 225(2) of the Act also specifically provides that if the person to whom such rent is due is not the person primarily liable for payment of the consolidated rate, he shall be entitled to recover from the person primarily liable fin the payment of such tax any amount for which credit is claimed as aforesaid. In view of the aforesaid provision made by the legislature entitling the person who had paid the consolidated rate to recover the said amount from the person primarily liable for the payment of taxes, I am of the view that there is no reason to hold that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation cannot attach the rent due from the Steel Authority of India which is admittedly a sub-tenant under the Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. That being the position, I do not find my reason to agree with Dr. Paul on the aforesaid question. 25. Accordingly, there is no merit in these writ applications. Ltd. That being the position, I do not find my reason to agree with Dr. Paul on the aforesaid question. 25. Accordingly, there is no merit in these writ applications. For the reasons aforesaid, two writ petitions fail. There will be no order as to costs. Interm orders, if there be any, shall stand vacated. Writ petitions dismissed.