Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1963 (PAT)

Jugal Ram v. State of Bihar

2011-09-13

JYOTI SARAN

body2011
ORDER Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned Assisting Counsel to G.P.14 appearing for the State and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gaya Municipal Corporation. 2. The only issue raised in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner a defaulter of Municipal tax, is entitled to the benefits arising of an Amnesty Scheme declared by the Government of Bihar in its department of Urban Development and Housing as published in a daily Newspaper Hindustan dated 14.1.2010 as placed at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By the said scheme, an amnesty from payment of penalty, was granted to the defaulters of Municipal Tax. Applications in these regard were to be filed by 28.2.2010. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner having his holding at A.P. Housing Colony, Ward No.32 Sadar Block Chandauti in the town and district of Gaya also filed his application on 2.2.2010 for grant of benefits arising under the Scheme and on getting no response, renewed his prayer by filing application on 8.2.2010 and again on 10.2.2010, placed at Annexures-3, 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition. 4. On non consideration of the request made by the petitioner, the writ petition came to be filed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Municipal Commissioner, Gaya, Municipal Corporation rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. It is contended that the Amnesty Scheme was not extended to such of the tax defaulters in whose case the assessment had been made and holdings had been created. With reference to the holding tax register for the period 1985-86 onwards, it is contended that the holding of the petitioner has been determined and tax assessed and the petitioner was found liable for payment of an amount of Rs.28,458/-. It is stated that the petitioner having information about the said outstanding, has suppressed this vital information and has submitted his application under the Scheme with a view to avoid the liability of the payment of holding tax assessed in the year 1985. 6. It is stated that the petitioner having information about the said outstanding, has suppressed this vital information and has submitted his application under the Scheme with a view to avoid the liability of the payment of holding tax assessed in the year 1985. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation today in which it is again sought to be convassed that the Amnesty Scheme was meant only for such of the house owners in whose case the holding had not yet been created and the assessment not made. It is stated that it was the endeavour on the part of the Corporation to bring all such people of area within the taxing network who, though were living in their respective holdings but without creation of holding and without any assessment. 7. It is contended that the petitioner does not fall in this category as in his case, the holding was created, the assessment done and tax was found outstanding. It is contended that such of the tax defaulters like the petitioner, were not extended the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme in question. 8. Considering the stand taken by the Corporation, the State Counsel was granted time to seek instructions as to the intent, object and purpose of the Government of Bihar in issuing the Amnesty Scheme. Despite the adjournments, learned counsel for the State shows helpless in absence of instruction from the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Bihar. In the circumstances, this court has no option but to determine the issue on the basis of the pleadings and materials on the record of the proceedings. 9. A perusal of the Amnesty Scheme placed at Annexure-2, manifests that it does not distinguish between such tax defaulters in whose case holding had been created and tax assessed and/or such person in whose case holding had not been created. All that the Scheme mentions is that it was extended to all such persons who were in arrears of holding tax. Whether or not assessment has been done becomes immaterial because in either case the class remains the same i.e of tax defaulters. Even otherwise, the Amnesty Scheme can not create a class within the class of tax defaulters. All that the Scheme mentions is that it was extended to all such persons who were in arrears of holding tax. Whether or not assessment has been done becomes immaterial because in either case the class remains the same i.e of tax defaulters. Even otherwise, the Amnesty Scheme can not create a class within the class of tax defaulters. Merely because in some cases the Corporation being lax in its duty had failed to create holdings and assess tax it does not stand to reason how they can deprive the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme to such of the tax defaulters, who were vigilant and in whose cases the holdings stood created and assessment made. Such artificial sub classification amongst the class of defaulters would be discriminatory and strikes at the very root of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. That being the position, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the Scheme. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme of 2010 as placed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed.