Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1816 (PNJ)

Taranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-12-12

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners through this bunch of writ petitions have approached this Court to challenge the house tax bills, which have been levied and recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the ground that these are illegal, discriminatory and without jurisdiction, besides being malafide and void abi nitio. 2. The ground of challenge may vary to an extent but main focus in these is on the levy of house tax. The challenge raised in Civil Writ Petition Nos.7686 of 2011, 11208 of 2009, 5151, 5159, 6548, 8482, 8483, 8484, 8485, 8486, 8487, 8488, 8489, 8490, 8982, 8983, 8984, 8985, 8986, 8987, 8988, 8989, 8990, 8991, 8992, 8993, 8994, 8995, 8996, 8997, 8998, 8999, 9000, 9001, 9002, 9003, 9004, 9005, 9006, 9007, 9008 and 9009 of 2011 appears to be common and, thus, these are being taken together for discussion and decision. Civil Writ Petition Nos.12060, 15103 of 2009 and 20925 of 2010 are being separately dealt with in view of different nature of challenge though a slight one as made in these writ petitions. Civil Writ Petition No.4193 of 2012, being different is dealt with separately. Civil Writ Petition Nos.7686 of 2011 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES AS NOTED ABOVE 3. While disposing of this bunch of Writ Petitions referred to above, the facts are being noted from Civil Writ Petition No.7686 of 2011. 4. It is alleged that Municipal Corporation, Patiala (respondent No.2) has been charging house tax without any jurisdiction from the petitioners. Reference is made to a notice issued under Section 103 (d) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (for short, “the Act”) for re-assessment of the properties of the petitioners for the purpose of house tax on 21.2.2011. Objections were filed on 21.3.2011. In fact, respondent No.2 had issued a house tax bill on 25.6.2010. Respondent No.2 thereafter issued a notice under Section 137 of the Act on 14.10.2010. A notice under Section 138 of the Act was issued on 21.12.2010. Reference is made to one letter, whereby the Officer of the Improvement Trust, Patiala, stated that Choti Baradari Scheme is under the control of respondent No.3 i.e. the Improvement Trust. The petitioners accordingly challenge this notice on the ground that the Municipal Corporation has no right to levy the house tax. 5. Reference is made to one letter, whereby the Officer of the Improvement Trust, Patiala, stated that Choti Baradari Scheme is under the control of respondent No.3 i.e. the Improvement Trust. The petitioners accordingly challenge this notice on the ground that the Municipal Corporation has no right to levy the house tax. 5. The Improvement Trust (respondent No.3) in its reply has, however, stated that the Trust has completed the work and has transferred the properties to Municipal Corporation. In the reply filed by Municipal Corporation, some preliminary objections are raised in regard to maintainability of the writ petition. This is stated so by way of short reply. As per respondent No.2, the writ petition is pre-mature as the objections filed by the petitioners against the notice issued for revising the house tax for the year 2010-11 is still pending before the House Tax Sub Committee constituted by the answering respondent. It is also stated that the petitioners would have a remedy of filing appeal under Section 146 of the Act only after the assessment order is passed. Reference is made to the provisions of Section 149 of the Act, which provides that no objection shall be taken to any valuation or assessment nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned in any manner or by any other authority then is provided under the Act. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable on this count. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main submission made by Sh.N.K.Suneja, counsel for the petitioners, appearing in number of petitions is regarding the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation to levy the house tax. As per the counsel, the property has not been transferred to the Municipal Corporation and, thus, the Corporation would have no right or jurisdiction to levy the house tax. In fact, the counsel has made reference to an order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11208 of 2009, which was initially dismissed by the Division Bench on 29.7.2009. Subsequently, however, the petitioner filed an application for review and the order dismissing the petition was reviewed. The review primarily was on the basis of the documents, which the petitioner had produced to show that the property had not been transferred to the Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, however, the petitioner filed an application for review and the order dismissing the petition was reviewed. The review primarily was on the basis of the documents, which the petitioner had produced to show that the property had not been transferred to the Municipal Corporation. Besides this, the counsel for the petitioner has also raised objection in regard to the manner in which the house tax has been determined. The counsel would plead that there has to be some basis for this. As per the counsel, it has to be on the basis of fair rent which is first required to be determined and then the house tax may be so levied. 7. Some of the arguments as advanced above were considered by the Division Bench, when Civil Writ Petition No. 11208 of 2009 was dismissed. The said observations may need a notice and are as follows:- “Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the paper book, we are of the view that the instant petition does not merit admission and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has placed on record an order dated 19.3.2004 whereby the property belonging to the petitioner was assessed for the purposes of house tax by the House Tax Sub Committee. The Sub Committee after hearing counsel for the petitioner has released the rate of house tax. It has been found that the total area as per the office report is 465 Sq.yd. and covered area is 4275 sq.ft. The market value of the land has been assessed at Rs.12,000/- sq. yds. and Rs.325/- sq. ft. The aforesaid estimation is based on the explanation tendered by Area Inspector regarding quality of construction. Accordingly, total valuation of the unit was assessed and rental value at the rate of 5% of the cost was arrived at Rs.3,41,522/- p.a. On the basis of the aforesaid order of assessment bill dated 11.10.2004 was prepared and sent. The order of assessment has attained finality and there is no challenge to the aforesaid order. Only House Tax Bill dated 11.10.2004 has been challenged before the Commissioner which inevitably is based on the order of assessment dated 19.3.2004. Therefore, we find that the order of the Divisional Commissioner does not suffer from legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The order of assessment has attained finality and there is no challenge to the aforesaid order. Only House Tax Bill dated 11.10.2004 has been challenged before the Commissioner which inevitably is based on the order of assessment dated 19.3.2004. Therefore, we find that the order of the Divisional Commissioner does not suffer from legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The argument of the learned counsel that the Improvement Trust continues to control the property does not have any basis and remains unsubstantiated. The only reliance by the counsel for the petitioner was on the order dated 24.5.2006 which is an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner where the property was found to be under the Control of the Improvement Trust. But the property herein could not be shown, either before this Court or before the Commissioner, to be under the control of Improvement Trust. In any case, we are not able to appreciate how the property allotted on 3.11.1980 could continue to be controlled by the Improvement Trust. The other argument that principles of natural justice have been violated has also not impressed us because it is preposterous to say that opportunity of hearing was not given. The petitioner was given repeated opportunities but he failed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner. His absence before the Divisional Commissioner was not bona-fide. Accordingly, we do not find an merit in the petition. For the reasons aforesaid this petition fails and the same is dismissed.” 8. This order, however, was subsequently reviewed. This is how all these writ petitions came to be filed and the main ground of attack continues to be the jurisdiction on the part of the Municipal Corporation to levy the house tax. 9. Almost all the petitions are directed against the notice and the assessment of the house tax is yet to take place. If any house tax is assessed, the petitioners would have a right to file appeal against the same. The writ petitions against the issuance of a show cause notice would be pre-mature. In those cases, where the assessment of house tax is already done, the petitioners are yet to file appeal against the said orders. The remedy of appeal is provided under the statute and is an efficacious one. 10. The plea of jurisdiction on the part of the Municipal Corporation to levy house tax can also be raised before the Appellate Authority. The remedy of appeal is provided under the statute and is an efficacious one. 10. The plea of jurisdiction on the part of the Municipal Corporation to levy house tax can also be raised before the Appellate Authority. The manner in which the assessment is done or sought to be done can also be so pleaded in an appeal. The plea whether such properties have been transferred to Municipal Corporation or not and whether the Municipal Corporation would be entitled to levy the house tax prior to the date of transfer is yet another issue, which can very well be raised before the Appellate Authority. 11. In fairness it may need a notice that the counsel appearing for the Improvement Trust have pointed out that the properties have since been transferred to the Municipal Corporation through a notification, which was read in the Court. The counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation has, however, urged that the transfer by the Municipal Corporation under Section 55 of the Improvement Trust Act is of streets lights and sewerages or other such services and not the properties as such. As per him, the liability to pay house tax or the transfer of properties as such is not dependent upon this transfer by the Improvement Trust to the Corporation. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4193 OF 2012 12. The counsel appearing for the Corporation in Civil Writ Petition No. 4193 of 2012 has not only pointed out that the property has yet not been transferred to Municipal Corporation but has referred to some provisions of the Improvement Trust Act to urge that the development charges or other such similar charges are leviable by the Improvement Trust. This issue can also be considered and decided at the time of assessment and subsequent thereto during the stage of appeal. 13. In view of this alternative efficacious remedy being available, in all these cases, I am not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction at this stage and would rather relegate the petitioners to respond to the notices, which have been issued and to file appeal in those cases where the assessment has already been made after issuance of notices. The petitioners would be at liberty to pleads all the grounds available to them, which shall be duly considered by the competent authorities and shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order. The petitioners would be at liberty to pleads all the grounds available to them, which shall be duly considered by the competent authorities and shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order. The petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the impugned order so passed before any appropriate Forum, including this Court, if they are aggrieved against any such orders in accordance with law. CIVIL WRIT PETITION Nos.12060, 15103 of 2009 AND 20925 OF 2010 14. In Civil Writ Petition No.12060 of 2009, the petitioner has purchased a plot in question on 21.1.1994. He received a house tax bill on 18.1.2005. He replied on 8.2.2005. He received yet another bill on 6.1.2006, to which he responded on 28.1.2006. On 4.7.2007, the petitioner received a letter of concession of payment with exemption of interest. The petitioner paid the house tax on 7.7.2007. On 5.10.2010, he again received a notice in the name of Yadvinder Singh, followed by yet another notice on 7.3.2008. The petitioner replied on 20.03.2008. The petitioner submitted a letter alongwith the cheque as payment of house tax on 18.7.2008. Still, he received a bill on 21.8.2008. The petitioner submitted his reply. The respondents issued a notice on 2.12.2008. The petitioner made an application for supply of documents and deposited sum of Rs.20,000/- and 15,000/- on 9/12.1.2009. Notice was then issued under Section 138 of the Act for payment of Rs.87,447/-, which the petitioner paid on 23.8.2009. The petitioner has now filed this petition to impugn the notice dated 16.3.2009 on the ground that it is illegal and discriminatory. The petitioner seeks refund of the house tax, which he has paid. Similarly, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.15103 of 2009 has impugned a house tax bill for which he has deposited the house tax of Rs.51,000/- and thereafter a notice has been issued to him under Section 138 of the Act. He has accordingly challenged this notice, requiring him to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,416/-. 15. In Civil Writ Petition No.20925 of 2010, the petitioner again has challenged the notice, fixing the value of the land in factory area, against which he has filed a representation. The petitioner had earlier paid house tax for 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, whereafter a fresh assessment order was passed on 12.11.2009. He has accordingly challenged the same through this writ petition being discriminatory and without jurisdiction. 16. The petitioner had earlier paid house tax for 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, whereafter a fresh assessment order was passed on 12.11.2009. He has accordingly challenged the same through this writ petition being discriminatory and without jurisdiction. 16. Here also, the petitioners have approached this Court against the notices. They have yet to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, which is available to them. Accordingly, the petitioners in these writ petitions are also relegated to the remedy of filing an appeal or to contest the notices, as the case may be, which have been issued to the petitioners. 17. All these writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------