Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 87 (JK)

Deepak Kumar Pankaj Kumar v. Dy. Commissioner

2008-03-27

Vinod Gupta

body2008
1. The Assessing Authority, Urban Immovable Property Tax-I, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessing Authority" in short) passed assessment orders under section 8(1) and 9 of the J&K Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short) on 01-04-1991 and 03-12-1999 determining the GARV of the property of the petitioners/assessee at Rs. 2,37,480 and created a demand on account of property tax. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners/assessee preferred an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Authority" in short) on the grounds that Ist and 2nd floor of the premises have been partitioned amongst the petitioners/assessee alongwith other owners whereas the basement and ground floor is still joint. The learned Appellate Authority accepted the plea of the petitioners/assessee and set aside the orders of the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority with a direction to raise demand of tax in accordance with the information collected/furnished as stated in the judgment. 2. The petitioners/assessee assailed this order of the Appellate Authority before the learned Commissioner, Sales Tax, J&K through the medium of this revision petition on following grounds:- 1. That the learned appellate authority has not been justified in not accepting the contention of the petitioner that the petitioners are only tenants in common with others of basement and ground floor portions of the property in question and no letting value of the said portion can be assessed in the hands of the petitioners unless a valid notice for assessment to raise assessment against all the owners of the said portions is issued and assessment to raise assessment against all the owners of the said portion is issued and assessment is raised in the name of all the owners of the said portions. And as neither any notice has been issued to all the owners of said portions nor any assessment order has been passed in the name of all the owners. The inclusion of letting value in the assessment of the appellant is wrong and not enforeceable in law. 2. That the learned appellate authority has erred in law in keeping silent on the contention of the appellant that the assessment of the appellants regarding property which is tenancy in common cannot be assessed in the hands of appellant is wrong and without jurisdiction. 3. 2. That the learned appellate authority has erred in law in keeping silent on the contention of the appellant that the assessment of the appellants regarding property which is tenancy in common cannot be assessed in the hands of appellant is wrong and without jurisdiction. 3. That the learned appellate authority has also erred in not directing the assessing authority to allow deduction on account of insurance paid regarding the property in question. Any other ground which may be urged and allowed at the time of arguments. 3. This revision petition was transferred to this Tribunal by the learned Sales Tax Commissioner in pursuant to the amendment made to Section 10 of the Act by the J&K Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on the file. 5. Mr. S. Dutt, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners/assessee, has contended that the petitioners are only tenants in common with other owners in basement and ground floor of the property in question and the property comprising Ist and 2nd floor alongwith roof top has been partitioned amongst the owners and each individual is getting rent separately as such the demand created in the name of the petitioners is wrong. No notice has been given to other owners nor any assessment order has been passed in their name as such the Appellate Authority was wrong in directing the Assessing Authority to raise demand of tax against all the owners. Mr. M.A. Bhat, Advocate, appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, has submitted that other owners have not filed any revision petition or appeal before any forum as such the petitioner/assessee cannot challenge this order. 6. The main question involves in this revision petition is as to whether the order of learned Appellate Authority directing the Assessing Authority to raise demand of tax in the name of all the owners as per the information collected and furnished before him by the petitioners/assessee is correct or not. The valuation list was prepared before April, 1991 and was effective from 01-04-1991 and the property in question was also included in the valuation list. The petitioners/assessee did not file any objections against this valuation list before the Assessing Authority. The valuation list was prepared before April, 1991 and was effective from 01-04-1991 and the property in question was also included in the valuation list. The petitioners/assessee did not file any objections against this valuation list before the Assessing Authority. However, when notice for demand created was served upon the petitioner/assessee they preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority and the petitioner/assessee raised the plea for the first time that the Ist and 2nd floor alongwith roof top of the property in question have been partitioned amongst the owners while all the owners are joint owners of basement and ground floor. They also produced documentary evidence showing that besides petitioner/assessee, there are other owners as well. Rule 9 of J&K UIP Tax Rules, 1962 lays a duty upon the owner of the property to inform about the transfer of any property within a period of 2 months from the date of this transfer after the completion of the valuation list. In this case the petitioner/assessee has not informed the department about the same after publication of valuation list. 7. Further section 9 of the Act empowers the Assessing Authority to make amendment in the valuation list which are required in order to bring list into accord. Thus Appellate Authority was right in directing the Assessing Authority to raise demand of tax in accordance with the information furnished before her in the appeal by the petitioners/assessee. The liability to pay tax cannot be absolved on technical ground. The revenue is required to be collected from the persons who are liable to pay the same. Further the effected parties have not challenged the order of the Appellate Authority in any way. The petitioner/assessee are liable to pay the property tax as per their share in the property and cannot escape of the liability on superfluous ground. 8. With these observations, I would hold that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority with clarification that the Assessing Authority shall amend valuation list in accordance with the law and rules and create liability after observing all required formalities. Accordingliy this revision petition is dismissed. The file be consigned to records and record of the lower authorities be sent back forthwith.