Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 167 (CAL)

KAPOOR v. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

2004-03-09

S.P.TALUKDAR

body2004
S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against order dated 29. 04. 2003 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in MAA Nos. 400, 407, 412 and 418 of 2000. ( 2 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner-M/s. Kapoor and Company Private Limited, may briefly be stated as follows : petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid four units being unit Nos. 250, 263, 260 and unit No. Basement IV having an area of 77. 74 sq. ft, 95. 30 sq. ft, 74. 59 sq. ft, and 18. 537 sq. ft. respectively, all situated at 3, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-700 001. The said units were proposed to be assessed by the respondent/the kolkata Municipal Corporation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month with effect from 3rd quarter 1999-2000 for six years. The Basement Unit No. IV was proposed at a rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. per month. The petitioner filed objection against such proposal. The Hearing Officer-VI finalized the said valuation reducing the rent of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month to Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month and similarly valuation for the Basement Unit No. IV was fixed at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. per month. Though the petitioner is entitled to receive copy of such order of the Hearing Officer dated 16. 12. 1999 in terms of section 188 of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act, 1980, it was not given to him. The petitioner preferred four separate appeals being MAA Nos. 400, 407, 412 and 418 of 2000 before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal'. The Tribunal after hearing the parties reduced the valuation and calculated the same on the basis of rent at the rate of Rs. 1. 85 per sq. ft. per month for all the units except the Basement-IV and it fixed the valuation at a rate of Re. 1/- per sq. ft. per month for the Basement. ( 3 ) THE K. M. C. filed four applications under Article 227 of the Constitution against the said orders of the Tribunal dated 01. 02. 2001, 22. 08. 2000, 07. 11. 2000 and 02. 02. 2001. Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by four separate orders dated 04. 04. 2002 disposed of the said four applications. ( 3 ) THE K. M. C. filed four applications under Article 227 of the Constitution against the said orders of the Tribunal dated 01. 02. 2001, 22. 08. 2000, 07. 11. 2000 and 02. 02. 2001. Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by four separate orders dated 04. 04. 2002 disposed of the said four applications. The petitioner filed four special leave petitions against the said judgment and order dated 04. 04. 2002 and the Supreme Court of India by its order dated 23. 09. 2002 disposed of the said four special leave petitions by directing that the petitioner should be permitted to pay property tax as fixed by the Tribunal in its earlier orders during the pendency of the proceedings of the Tribunal. While sending the matter back, the Hon'ble Court observed that it finds no substance in the contentions of the learned Advocate of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation that the Tribunal has adopted "comparable method" which is not permissible under the law. This Court observed that the Tribunal did not arrive at any finding on the basis of the comparable method as argued by the learned Counsel for the k. M. C. The order was set aside and it was remanded on the technical ground that Rule 19 (6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporationtaxation Rules, 1987 has not bee a complied with inasmuch as no formal application was filed for adducing additional evidence though the same was referred to in the judgment of the tribunal. The Tribunal committed the same error while passing the impugned judgment and relied upon the various judgments, orders and other documents placed by the K. M. C. without appreciating that no formal application under rule 19 (6) was filed. In view of the judgment and order dated 04. 04. 2002, it was not open to the Tribunal to reopen the assessment afresh and increase the valuation from Rs. 1. 85/- per sq. ft. per month to Rs. 4. 75a per sq. ft. per month without any reason. By order dated 29. 04. 03 the Tribunal fixed the valuation of the said basement Unit No. IV at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. per month. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 29. 04. 1. 85/- per sq. ft. per month to Rs. 4. 75a per sq. ft. per month without any reason. By order dated 29. 04. 03 the Tribunal fixed the valuation of the said basement Unit No. IV at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. per month. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 29. 04. 03 is bad, illegal and should be set aside on the reason amongst others that the said Tribunal relied upon certain facts which have neither been relied upon by the petitioner nor by the respondent. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to deal with the same. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal has not addressed a vital point raised by the petitioner that the order of the Hearing Officer is a non-speaking order and, as such, deserves to be set aside oh that ground alone. The Tribunal also did not give any reason for allowing the K. M. C. to file various documents without making application under Rule 19 (6 ). The Tribunal misdirected itself while appreciating the facts. It observed that "bardhan Market" does not have any escalator, cooling system, computer operating system and lift facility but, in fact, the said market has those facilities. Bardhan Market and Emami Market are thus identical in nature. Bardhan Market is located in a better place than where the disputed property is situated. Camac Street has an edge over the Lord Sinha Road. The municipal Corporation fixed annual valuation on the basis of rent at the rate of rs. 1. 85 per sq. ft. per month while assessing the valuation for the almost same record whereas the said units assessed on the basis of Rs. 4. 75 per sq. ft. per month. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the Inspector that he never had been to Bardhan Market in his official capacity. The Tribunal by relying upon the brochure and without checking up as to how far the assurances given in it were translated into reality, committed error. The tribunal ought to have held that Camac Street is more important road commercially, businesswise and otherwise than Lord Sinha Road. The Hearing officer made valuation without following the provisions of the K. M. C. Act, 1980 and the rules made thereunder. The tribunal ought to have held that Camac Street is more important road commercially, businesswise and otherwise than Lord Sinha Road. The Hearing officer made valuation without following the provisions of the K. M. C. Act, 1980 and the rules made thereunder. Even assuming that the value of the land and building was suggested by the petitioner, the calculation arrived at by the municipal Assessment Tribunal is wrong, baseless and without any particular. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) MR. S Pal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order appears to be based on oral evidence and that too, subjective opinion of the witness. Referring to section 174 of the K. M. C. Act, 1980 it is contended by Mr. Pal that if section 174 (1) cannot be complied with, sub-section (4a) comes into play, According to him, no exercise was done by the tribunal under section 174 (1) of the relevant Act. ( 8 ) SECTION 174 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 deals with determination of annual valuation. In terms of sub-section (1) of section 174 of the said Act the annual value of any land or building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent including service charges, if any, at which such land or building might at the time of assessment be reasonably expected to let from year to year, less an allowance of 10%, for the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain such land or building in a state to command such gross rent. ( 9 ) SUB-SECTION (4a) lays down that if the gross annual rent of any land or building or parts thereof cannot be easily estimated, the gross annual rent of such land or building for the purpose of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be seven and half per cent of the value of the building obtained by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building at the time of assessment less a reasonable amount to be deducted on account of depreciation, if any, to the estimated present market value of the land. ( 10 ) MR. Pal has submitted that the present law is also quite in tune with section 128 of the Bengal Municipal Act which may be set out hereunder"128. ( 10 ) MR. Pal has submitted that the present law is also quite in tune with section 128 of the Bengal Municipal Act which may be set out hereunder"128. (1) The annual value of a holding shall be deemed to be the gross annual rental at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let. (2) If such gross annual rental cannot, in the opinion of the assessor, be easily estimated or ascertained, the annual value of such holding shall be deemed to be an amount which may be equal to but may not exceed seven and half per centum on the value of the building or buildings on such holding at the time of such assessment plus a reasonable ground rent for the land comprised in the holding". ( 11 ) REFERRING to the decision in the case of Corporation of Calcutta vs. Royal calcutta Golf Club, reported in 68 Calwn 877, it is submitted that the earlier act makes it obvious that the annual valuation is to be made either under subsection (1) or under sub-section (2 ). Normally the annual valuation should be made under sub-section (1 ). This has reference to the reasonable letting value of the premises. It is only when the gross annual rental cannot, in the opinion of the assessor, be easily estimated or ascertained, then and then only the annual value of such holding shall be calculated in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-section (4a ). ( 12 ) MR. Das Adhikary, learned Counsel, appearing for the Kolkata Municipal corporation has submitted that section 174 (4a) of the Act is an independent provision which says about calculation of gross annual rent where the rent cannot be easily estimated while section 174 (1) says about how the annual valuation is to be calculated from the gross annual rent. According to him the proposition that section 174 (1) has to be applied first before applying section 174 (4a) is a wrong interpretation of law. He has further added that the decision as reported in 68 Calwn 877 has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to him the proposition that section 174 (1) has to be applied first before applying section 174 (4a) is a wrong interpretation of law. He has further added that the decision as reported in 68 Calwn 877 has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 13 ) AFTER careful consideration of the relevant provision regarding determination of the valuation in the earlier Act and that in the present, I am, however, of the opinion that the latter may not be an echo of the past but certainly there are significant similarities. If determination of the annual valuation cannot be conveniently and easily made following section 174 (1) of the Act, then and then only the authority concerned is required to take recourse to section 174 (4a) of the said Act. This follows the principle of harmonious construction. ( 14 ) MR. S. Pal has then submitted that the statutory authority is required to act in the manner as specified and in no other way. In this context he has referred to the decision in the case of' Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253, wherein it was observed that "it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than that which is laid down with such minute particularity in the sections themselves". In fact, it is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. (Ref: Hukam chand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1976 SC 789 ). In fact, similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat electricity Board vs. Girdharlal Motilal and Anr. , reported in AIR 1969 SC 267 , wherein it was held that "such a power must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. The legislature has prescribed the manner of its exercise. It must exercise it in that manner and in no other way". Mr. Pal has further drawn attention of this Court to the decision in the case of Dodsal Private Ltd. vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in 2001 (9) SCC 339 . The legislature has prescribed the manner of its exercise. It must exercise it in that manner and in no other way". Mr. Pal has further drawn attention of this Court to the decision in the case of Dodsal Private Ltd. vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in 2001 (9) SCC 339 . There could be no dispute as to the aforesaid legal position. ( 15 ) ON behalf of the opposite party - Kolkata Municipal Corporation it has been argued that the revisional application is not maintainable since only one application has been filed against four appeals. The parties in all the cases being the same and as impugned judgment is the one dated 29. 04. 03, I find nothing wrong in this and I find it difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Das adhikary in this regard. There is no justification for taking a hyper-technical approach. ( 16 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Das Adhikary that assessee could not prove his case though the onus lies on him. Our attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Bala Bestos India ltd. and Ors. , reported in 1998 (1) CHN 492 . Mr. Das Adhikary has contended that the principles for fixation of rateable value are well-known. Ordinarily, a rateable value will be arrived at after particulars had been given by the owners or occupiers under Rule 8 of the said Rules. On the receipt of the notice, it will be for the complainant to lead evidence and prove as to what should be correct reteable value. He seems to be quite justified in referring to the decision in the case of Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. State of U. P. and Ors. , reported in 2000 (1)scc 633 in support of his contention that valuation is essentially a question of fact. ( 17 ) HE has further drawn attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Lt. Col. P. R. Chaudhary (Retd.) vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. , reported in 2000 (4) SCC 577 , in support of his assertion that size, situation, locality and other circumstances are relevant factors required to be taken into consideration for determining valuation. Col. P. R. Chaudhary (Retd.) vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. , reported in 2000 (4) SCC 577 , in support of his assertion that size, situation, locality and other circumstances are relevant factors required to be taken into consideration for determining valuation. The Apex Court in the said case observed as follows :"law as interpreted by this Court cannot be brushed aside by saying to the effect that it is not in conformity with the statutory provisions. The law laid down by the Court is explicit and admits of no doubt. For the purpose of arriving at the rateable value the basic principle is the annual rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably expect to get if the premises were let out to a hypothetical tenant. It would depend on the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein. All these and other relevant factors would have to be followed, in determining the rateable value". ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel, Mr. Pal, has contended that the statute does not necessarily require that it is the obligation on the part of the assessee to place materials before the concerned authority while determining the valuation. He has submitted that such principle does not find mention in section 174 of the kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. According to him, it is for the Hearing officer to apply the right principle after giving opportunities to both the parties to place relevant materials and after giving due regard to the submission of both the parties. ( 19 ) IT appears that in the instant case the K. M. C. has placed much reliance on the brochure which was brought out by the petitioner i. e. , M/s. Kapoor and company Limited. Mr. Pal while submitting that learned Tribunal could not have had any justification to place reliance upon such brochure has contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have based its findings on the evidence before it. ( 20 ) MR. Das Adhikary, however, has categorically asserted that such a "brochure" is not a material produced by the K. M. C. It is the brochure which was brought out by the petitioner's company and was circulated to attract customers and others. ( 21 ) 'brochure' is a material in the form of an advertisement giving detailed information. ( 20 ) MR. Das Adhikary, however, has categorically asserted that such a "brochure" is not a material produced by the K. M. C. It is the brochure which was brought out by the petitioner's company and was circulated to attract customers and others. ( 21 ) 'brochure' is a material in the form of an advertisement giving detailed information. While relying upon such a brochure, there is need for exercising caution and one must be discreet. It is to be carefully measured in order to ascertain as to how far it is in tune with the reality. It is also to be ascertained as to how far the claims made in such a material correspond to the actual thing. ( 22 ) WHILE assailing the observations made by the Tribunal, Mr. Pal has drawn attention of the Court to the fact that Tribunal has given undue importance to a material i. e. , the brochure, which does not necessarily reflect the actual state of affairs. It is further submitted that one Hrishikesh Sen, who was Inspector, was examined from the side of the opposite party/kolkata municipal Corporation. Sri Sen further referred to the Inspection Book. He deposed that premises No. 3, Lord Sinha Road is a market complex popularly known as A-1 Shoppers' City. Sri Sen filed a printed colour brochure of the premises which was marked exhibit 'b'. It appears that the Tribunal after going through the evidence of the said witness and taking into consideration the brochure observed that description of the market complex as given in the brochure tallies with those as mentioned in relevant papers and records. ( 23 ) IN this context it is perhaps necessary to refer to the certain observations of the Tribunal. The Tribunal appears to have made comparative study of the premises No. 3, Lord Sinha Road with the Bardhan Market of the Camac Street. The Tribunal has referred to the evidence of the witness that Bardhan Market cannot be equated with the said premises as the former does not have any escalator, cooling system, computer operative system, lift facility, etc. like those of the disputed premises. The Tribunal has further referred to the fact that bardhan Market has not been constructed by such high quality of marble in the floors as well as on the walls as No. 3, Lord Sinha Road. like those of the disputed premises. The Tribunal has further referred to the fact that bardhan Market has not been constructed by such high quality of marble in the floors as well as on the walls as No. 3, Lord Sinha Road. The Tribunal after going through all relevant materials observed that "there is absolutely no doubt that 3, Lord Sinha Road is unparallel market complex in the city of Kolkata. On going through the brochure, we find that various facilities and amenities are provided in the said market complex upto such extent where marketing is a very pleasing experience for the sellers as well as buyers". No doubt, the printed colour brochure was published and circulated by the petitioner and it has been projected as "calcutta's World Class Shopping Centre". The Tribunal has thereafter gone into details of whatever has been stated in the brochure. In this context I cannot but hold that brochure being a publicity material cannot be said to be a conclusive evidence of actual state of affairs. Publicity material like brochure not only has a tendency to magnify and glorify the actual state of affairs, it further attempts to conceal what is not in existence or not available. In these days a prudent man is supposed to remain alert and cannot allow himself to be swayed with various forms of advertisement. With the technological revolution having far reaching consequences in today's world and particularly in the audio-visual field, there is perhaps more need for exercise of discretion while relying upon a publicity material. ( 24 ) THOUGH, Mr. Pal, has found little justification in the Tribunal's referring to the book 'principles and Practice of Valuation' by Mr. J. A. Parks, I am of the view that such reference is certainly not irrelevant and it is rather necessary to obtain ideas frorr an expert and use the same whenever occasion demands. But while doing so, one cannot afford to ignore the statutory provisions of law. Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated by learned Counsel Mr. Pal on its behalf, is that the Tribunal has not given any specific reason as to why the annual valuation could not be determined applying section 174 (1) of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act. ( 25 ) IT has been argued by Mr. Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated by learned Counsel Mr. Pal on its behalf, is that the Tribunal has not given any specific reason as to why the annual valuation could not be determined applying section 174 (1) of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act. ( 25 ) IT has been argued by Mr. Das Adhikary appearing for the Kolkata municipal Corporation that the present petitioner, as appellant, appeared before the Hearing Officer in connection with assessment of the annual valuation of premises No. 3, Lord Sinha Road in terms of section 174 (4a) of K. M. C. Act, 1980. The Tribunal referring to the same observed that the determination of valuation was thus required to be considered on the basis of the cost of land and building. This, however, by itself cannot take away the responsibility of the authority concerned to follow strictly the guidelines given in the statute itself. It is settled principle of law that there cannot by any estoppel against statute. It cannot be said that present petitioner chose to get the property valued in terms of section 174 (4a) of the K. M. C. Act and even if it did, the authority concerned cannot afford to remain indifferent to the statutory provision as laid down under section 174 (1) of the Act. ( 26 ) IN my opinion, Mr. Pal is quite justified in submitting that this Court is not required to make a comparative study while dealing with an application under Article 227 of the Constitution but it certainly has to apply its mind as to how far there has been compliance of section 174 (1) of the Act. This Court is under legal obligation to examine as to how far there has been exercise of power in compliance with section 174 (1) of the Act. In fact, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has not stated that the annual valuation of the property in question cannot be easily estimated. ( 27 ) THOUGH, strictly speaking, it is not within the scope of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution to analyse and examine the observations of the Tribunal in regard to its comparative study of the disputed premises being No. 3, Lord Sinha Road and Bardhan Market, there is need for appreciating that both the said places are situated in the heart of the city of kolkata. The 'city of Joy' has its own pomp and grandeur apart from its rich cultural heritage. And, both Camac Street and Lord Sinha Road are essentially parts of the glamorous and glittering Kolkata. It will not be proper to value a property merely on the basis of new gadgets and service facilities. ( 28 ) REFERRING to the Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of Albion jute Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd. , reported in AIR 1953 Cal 458 , it has been categorically asserted by Mr. Pal that there can be no estoppel against statute. In this context he has also referred to the decision in the case of Mathra Parshad and Sons vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , reported in AIR 1962 SC 745 and Rishabh Kumar and Sons vs. State of U. P. and Ors. , reported in AIR 1987 sc 1576 . In fact, there is hardly any scope for dispute in regard to the settled position of law that there cannot be any estoppel against statute. ( 29 ) MR. Pal has further drawn attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Dottie Karan vs. Lachmi Prasad Sinha, reported in AIR 1931 PC 52. There the Privy Council held "that express provisions of the Registration Act not having been complied with, there can be no estoppel". ( 30 ) MR. Pal, thereafter, has in fact gone a step further by arguing that inherent lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured. According to him, examination of a matter under section 174 (1) of the K. M. C. Act is a condition precedent and if that is not fulfilled, the authority concerned cannot go and take recourse to section 174 (4a) of the said Act. Mr. Pal has attempted to fortify his argument by drawing attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Balai Chandra hazra vs. Shewdhari Jadav, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1062 . The Apex Court in the said judgment observed as follows :"further, the fact that a party did not object to the Appellate Bench examining witnesses and recording finding of facts on appreciation of evidence cannot estop him from raising the point in Supreme Court since the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction and no amount of consent could confer jurisdiction". ( 31 ) ACCORDING to Mr. ( 31 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Pal, there should not have been further re-examination of the Inspector Mr. Sen and the Tribunal should have examined the entire materials on record i. e. , the existing materials as well as additional evidence, liberty for which was given. It has been contended on behalf of the K. M. C. that the brochure in question was a document/material brought out by the petitioner and, so, the contents of the same cannot be allowed to be challenged. Moreover, the claim made in the brochure was substantiated by witness and that could not be rebutted. Mr. Das Adhikary has also stated that on the other hand the petitioner has not done anything concrete in order to substantiate its claim before the Tribunal. It has been further contended that the guidelines given in the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court reveal that the materials before the Hearing Officer were required to be taken into consideration together with additional evidence, if any. ( 32 ) MR. Das Adhikary has further referred to the decision in the case of sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , reported in air 2003 SC 1561, in support of his contention that High Court in revisional jurisdiction will only see whether the Tribunal proceeded within its parameters or not. ( 33 ) REFERRING to the decision in the case of P. C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal, reported in AIR 1972 SC 608 , it has been submitted by Mr. Das adhikary that once a document is properly admitted the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be conclusive evidence. ( 34 ) NO doubt, the brochure in question has been marked Ext. 'b'. There can be no grievance in regard to its admissibility in the backdrop of the present case. But it will be stretching one's imagination too far to think that the contents of the said brochure are the gospel truth. This point has been earlier dealt with and does not require any further discussion except that such a document does not necessarily present the actual state of affairs before the concerned authority. ( 35 ) IT has been argued by learned Counsel, Mr. This point has been earlier dealt with and does not require any further discussion except that such a document does not necessarily present the actual state of affairs before the concerned authority. ( 35 ) IT has been argued by learned Counsel, Mr. Pal, that even assuming that the valuation is required to be made under section 174 (4a) of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act, the calculation made by the Tribunal has not been proper. Mr. Pal has pointed out that the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are based on fantastically precise misconception and consequently, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal suffer from inherent illegality. For the sake of convenience it is desirable to reproduce the said section 174 (4a) of the Act hereunder:"if the gross annual rent of any land or buildings or part thereof cannot be easily estimated, the gross annual rent of such land or building for the purposes of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be seven and half per cent of the value of the building obtained by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building at the time of assessment less a reasonable amount to be deducted on account of depreciation, if any, to the estimated present market value of the land : provided that the estimated present cost shall not include the cost of any plant or machinery, excepting those enumerated in Schedule-VIII, on the land or the building as aforesaid". ( 36 ) MR. Pal, has further submitted that the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the fact that the subject-matter before it was three units and one basement of the Premises No. 3 Lord Sinha Road and assessment of valuation of different units cannot be made on equal footing. True, there cannot be any equality amongst unequals. It is for the Tribunal to ascertain the valuation after taking into consideration all relevant aspects which, of course, include the size, location, particulars, services and so on and so forth. In view of earlier discussion in this regard I don't think it necessary to elaborate this aspect any further. The fact remains that justice demands dotting of every 'i' and cutting of every t'. It is crystal clear that the Tribunal has failed to make calculation strictly in compliance with the provision under sub-section (4a) of section 174 of KMC Act. The fact remains that justice demands dotting of every 'i' and cutting of every t'. It is crystal clear that the Tribunal has failed to make calculation strictly in compliance with the provision under sub-section (4a) of section 174 of KMC Act. ( 37 ) IT is perhaps needless to mention that determination of annual valuation and to impose tax on its basis is not an easy job. But 'taxes' are the dues that the people pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society. People need water, sanitation, electricity, clean roads and various other civic facilities in daily life. Municipalities or authorities like that arrange the same with taxpayers' money. Lord Denning M. R. observed that "the avoidance of tax may be lawful, but it is not yet a virtue". In the words of Edmund Burke "to tax and to please, no more than to love and be wise, is not open to men". But, "that which angers men most is to be taxed above their neighbours". The only and perhaps the best course is to comply with the statutory provisions - in letter as well as in spirit. ( 38 ) IN such circumstances and having regard to the discussion as made above, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order which has been sought to be assailed herein deserves and demands interference. It suffers from inherent impropriety and consequently it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot afford to remain a passive onlooker to this. It is not for this Court within the scope for the present application to set it right but it is for the Tribunal to undo the wrong. ( 39 ) ACCORDINGLY, the present application succeeds. ( 40 ) THE C. O. being No. 1155 of 2003 arising out of an application under article 227 of the Constitution be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 29. 04. 2003 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal be set aside. The matter is sent back on remand with a direction upon the Tribunal to redetermine the annual valuation of the property in question after hearing both sides. 04. 2003 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal be set aside. The matter is sent back on remand with a direction upon the Tribunal to redetermine the annual valuation of the property in question after hearing both sides. It may be pointed out that the Tribunal need not be guided by any observation in regard to the merits of the matter and will be at liberty to arrive at its own finding. There is no order as to cost. ( 41 ) XEROX certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on payment of requisite fees. Application succeeds.