Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1419 (GUJ)

Tokle Timber Mart v. State of Gujarat

2016-07-21

A.J.SHASTRI, AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. These petitions arise in similar background. We may, for the present, refer to facts as arising in Special Civil Application No. 16400 of 2015. 2. The petitioner is a proprietory concern and is engaged in trading in Timber for which purpose, the petitioner occupies premises which is situated within the limits of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has challenged a bill dated 22.07.2014 issued by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation demanding from the petitioner a property tax of Rs. 6,12,190/- for the period upto 31.03.2013 and a further bill dated 24.09.2015 for the period after 31.03.2013. 3. The Property Tax Rules in Bhavnagar have a chequered history. Upto 31.03.1997, the Corporation had set of rules which provided for collection of property tax on annual rental basis. However, by issuing notification dated 31.03.1997, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation introduced fresh set of rules permitting collection of property taxes in various properties situated within the Municipal Corporation on the basis of carpet area. This formula adopted the carpet area of the property whether open or constructed upon and then applied various factors principally depending on the nature and use of the properties. We are not directly concerned with the nitty-gritty of the manner in which these rules operated. Suffice it to note that large number of owners or occupiers of various properties of Bhavnagar challenged these rules before the High Court. A bunch of petitions being Special Civil Application No. 16864 of 2011 and connected petitions in case of Bhavnagar District Chamber of Industries v. State of Gujarat through the chief Secretary and ors came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 30.08.2013. We would revert back to the judgment at a later stage. At this stage, we may record that the Court found that the Corporation had no power to levy property tax on carpet area basis. The Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997 were, therefore, declared as illegal. The Court was of the opinion that despite setting aside the Taxation Rules, there cannot be a vacuum or zero tax formula and, therefore, made two fold adjustments. With respect to those property owners or occupiers who had voluntarily paid the taxes as per the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997, the Court provided that setting aside of the Rules would have no effect. With respect to those property owners or occupiers who had voluntarily paid the taxes as per the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997, the Court provided that setting aside of the Rules would have no effect. With respect to the petitioners who had challenged the Rules, the Court provided that the Corporation could levy tax for the interim period, not on the basis of Rules of 31.03.1997 but on the basis of the structure prevailing prior to that. We may record that, by the time the Court delivered the judgment, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation had come up with the fresh formula of carpet area based taxation rules on the strength of amended Section 144A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and post 01.04.2013, all property taxes were to be governed by such fresh set of rules. 4. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, it appears that a special notice was issued on 08.08.2011 on the basis of the tax formula of 31.03.1997 where the municipal ratable value was assessed at Rs. 4793/-. The assessment of tax was worked out at Rs. 15,529/- per annum. Under this notice, the Corporation desired to assess the petitioner's property tax effective from 01.04.2009. The petitioner did not respond to such notice and the Corporation thereupon, issued a demand notice/bill on 10.05.2012 demanding a total of Rs. 1,26,146/- for the period between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2013. 5. After the High Court disposed of the said group of petitions in case of Bhavnagar District Chamber of Industries v. State of Gujarat through the chief Secretary and ors (supra) the Corporation issued a fresh bill dated 22.07.2014 demanding a total tax of Rs. 6,12,190/- for the period between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2013 purportedly under the ratable value formula which prevailed upto 31.03.1997. The Corporation issued further bill dated 24.09.2015 raising property tax demand from the petitioner for the period post 01.04.2013. At that stage, the petitioner filed this petition, in which, in addition to challenging the above mentioned notices, the petitioner has also questioned the very authority of the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation to levy the tax from the petitioner without what the petitioner contends is the procedure established by law. 6. The respondents have appeared and filed reply, in which, it is pointed out that the petitioner is holding the premises as tenant of the Gujarat Maritime Board ['GMB' for short]. 6. The respondents have appeared and filed reply, in which, it is pointed out that the petitioner is holding the premises as tenant of the Gujarat Maritime Board ['GMB' for short]. The area within the control of the GMB was included within the limits of Bhavnagar Municipality by a resolution passed in the year 1965. Since the port area was within the management and control of GMB, property tax bills were issued against the Board. There were disputes between the GMB and the Municipality. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is liable to assess the property tax for which a special notice was issued under Rule 15(2) of the Taxation Rules to which the petitioner did not reply. Thus, after following the procedure, the property bills were raised. 7. Facts are substantially similar in all the petitions. In many of these cases, however, we notice that special notices issued by the Municipal Corporation sought to levy the property taxes from the noticees for different periods anterior to the notice ranging from 01.04.1982 and thereafter. It is in the background of such fact that we have to judge the validity of the action of the Municipal Corporation. We must be conscious that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in case of Bhavnagar District Chamber of Industries v. State of Gujarat through the chief Secretary and ors (supra) had, in context of the challenge to the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997, given certain directions. Consideration of the present challenge of the petitioners cannot be oblivious or de hors such directions. 8. In this background, counsel Ms. Jani vehemently contended that the Municipal Corporation has raised tax demands without following proper procedure. No special notices in many cases inviting objections from the owners or occupiers of the property were issued. Without following further procedure and assessing the tax liability, property tax bills were issued which action was wholly without jurisdiction. 9. Counsel submitted that the High Court having struck down the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997, only course open for the Corporation was to levy tax on the basis of pre 31.03.1997 formula that too only where the same was legally permissible. 9. Counsel submitted that the High Court having struck down the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997, only course open for the Corporation was to levy tax on the basis of pre 31.03.1997 formula that too only where the same was legally permissible. In other words, if property assessments were not done at the relevant time after following the legal procedure, merely because the High Court in the judgment in case of Bhavnagar District Chamber of Industries v. State of Gujarat through the chief Secretary and ors (supra) allowed collection of property tax on the basis of old rules, would not automatically permit the Corporation to demand and levy the same from the petitioners who had never been subjected to such tax assessment in past. In this context, counsel drew our attention to various rules of the Municipal Taxation Rules. She also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kalyan Municipal Council and ors v. Usha Paper Products (P) Ltd. and anr reported in (1988) 3 SCC 306 and of Division Bench of this Court in case of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jhaveri Keshavlal Lallubhai reported in 1965 GLR 228 . 10. On the other hand, Ms. M.L. Shah for the Corporation opposed the petitions contending that the Corporation had issued special notices to all petitioners at the relevant time. Since no objections were raised by these petitioners, assessments were finalized and tax bills were issued. She submitted that the petitioners are occupying the premises since several years without paying any property tax at all. Previously, the GMB had raised disputes about paying property tax to the Municipal Corporation. Ever since the Corporation had decided to levy the taxes from the occupant, the action is being stalled through some legal procedure or the other. 11. Before adverting to rival contentions, we may record that the petitioners have been visited with notices for assessments by the Municipal Corporation for the period past 01.04.2013 and we are informed the petitioners would be taking their remedies in response to such notices as may be advised. In other words, in the present petition, we are confined to the dispute of legality of property taxes of the petitioners upto 31.03.2013. 12. In other words, in the present petition, we are confined to the dispute of legality of property taxes of the petitioners upto 31.03.2013. 12. We may recall that Division Bench in case of Bhavnagar District Chamber of Industries v. State of Gujarat through the chief Secretary and ors(supra) was examining the legality of the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997. In this context, the Court found that the Corporation did not have authority to collect such tax on carpet area basis. The Court, therefore, struck down the order of the Commissioner dated 31.03.1997 providing for such levy making following observations: "7.4 At this stage it is required to be noted that even the rules proposed by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation to assess and levy the municipal tax on the basis of the carpet area has been granted sanction/approval by the State Government in the month of April 2013. However, it is also required to be noted that as per the amendment in the BPMC Act under section 141AA, the municipal tax on the properties and the open land can be assessed and levied on the basis of the carpet area and even there was amendment in section 127 in the year 1999 however, all these are subject to the same being adopted by the concerned corporation and the same being approved/sanctioned by the State Government. In any case at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1997, there was no provision at all to assess and levy the tax on the basis of carpet area and/or to determine the annual letting value on the basis of the carpet area and that too on uniform basis. As stated hereinabove, at the relevant time the municipal tax was leviable on the basis of the annual ratable value/annual letting value. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 is wholly without jurisdiction and/or authority, under the law, of the commissioner and without following any procedure as required under the provisions of the BPMC Act." 13. The Court was, however, conscious that firstly this tax structure was not challenged by all residents or property occupiers of Bhavnagar and, secondly, that even the petitioners had to pay tax in some form or the other. The Court was, however, conscious that firstly this tax structure was not challenged by all residents or property occupiers of Bhavnagar and, secondly, that even the petitioners had to pay tax in some form or the other. The Court, therefore, observed that there cannot be zero tax liability and, therefore, all owners and occupiers would have to pay municipal tax as provided under the BPMC Act and the Corporation would, therefore, have to carry out fresh assessment and collect taxes considering the previous rates prevailing prior to 31.03.1997. While doing so, the Court provided that such directions would not apply to those occupants and owners who have already paid the municipal tax on the basis of the impugned formula without protest. The Court, therefore, gave following directions: "[7.6] Now and after holding that the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 issued by the Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation is without authority under the law and without jurisdiction and dehors of the provisions of the BPMC Act, we are required to consider what will be the consequences. The consequences shall be that all the respective properties are required to be assessed and levied the municipal taxes considering the provisions prevailing prior to 31.03.1997 and the concerned property holders/owners/occupants are required to pay the municipal taxes considering the provisions prevailing prior to 31.03.1997. There cannot be any zero liability. All the owners/occupants are required to pay the municipal taxes as provided under the BPMC Act [now GPMC Act]. Therefore, the corporation is required to have the fresh assessment and levy the municipal taxes considering the provisions and the rates prevailing prior to 31.03.1997 till there is an amendment in the Act and subject to the rates of the taxes as determined under section 99 of the BPMC Act and amended from time to time. [7.7] Now, the submission made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation that after the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 and in the meantime till the present petitions are heard and in view of the various schemes of rebate etc. is concerned, so many occupants/occupiers have already paid municipal taxes as per the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 deserves consideration. is concerned, so many occupants/occupiers have already paid municipal taxes as per the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 deserves consideration. It is empathetically submitted before us that these directions shall create the situation whereby one set of assessees would be governed by the law in fact operating at the relevant time and those who voluntarily chose to pay the property tax without a murmur on carpet area basis are precluded from reagitating the very issue. However, to our mind, from the entire gamut of facts and circumstances emerging on record, if this is not done the same may lead to create unimaginably chaotic situation as the amount of tax collected so far by the Corporation must have already been spent towards public causes by now. This, according to us, is the best possible measure/solution while quashing the order impugned. Those occupants/owners who have as such accepted the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 and in fact paid the municipal taxes on the basis of the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 without protest and they have already paid the municipal taxes, their cases are not required to be reassessed again and on quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.03.1997, they cannot claim the refund of the taxes which they have already paid without protest. If the aforesaid is not considered in that case there shall be irreversible situation and the municipal corporation will have to refund the amount of taxes already collected which they have already spent for public purpose. To overcome the aforesaid situation, it is directed that the present judgment and order shall not be applicable with respect to those occupants/owners of the properties/land who have already paid their municipal taxes on the basis of the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 without protest. [7.8] Now, so far as the challenge to the assessment and tax bills and the objection raised on behalf of the respondents against the assessment/municipal tax bills, the respective occupants/occupiers are required to prefer appeal before the District Court is concerned, it is required to be noted that the impugned assessment/bills are issued on the basis of the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 which is held to be illegal and without authority under the law and therefore, the respective petitioners shall be entitled to the consequential reliefs. It is also required to be noted that as per the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions that once the petitions are admitted, respective petitioners cannot be normally nonsuited on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy. In any case when the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 on the basis of which the assessment is made and the impugned bills are issued is held to be illegal and without jurisdiction and authority under the law, the impugned assessment/bills deserves to be quashed and set aside. [8.0] in view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these petitions succeed. The impugned order dated 31.03.1997 issued by the Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and the consequential assessment/tax bills issued to the respective occupants/owners are hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the corporation to make a fresh assessment and levy the municipal taxes on the respective properties/lands as per the taxes/rates/provisions/procedures prevailing prior to 31.03.1997 and as per the rates/taxes determined on the basis of the amendment made from time to time and considering the provisions of BPMC Act and concerned occupants/occupiers to pay the same as there cannot be any zero liability. The aforesaid procedure shall be completed within a period of six months from today. However, it is clarified at the cost of reiteration that the aforesaid exercise shall be done and the present judgment and order shall not be applicable with respect to those occupants/owners who have already paid the municipal taxes on the basis of the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 without protest, meaning thereby their cases are not required to be reopened and they are not required to be reassessed again as per the judgment and order. Consequently, the concerned District Court to decide and dispose of the pending appeals in accordance with law and on merits as the impugned order dated 31.03.1997 which provides that the appeals pending before the District Court shall be disposed of as per clause 9 of the order dated 31.03.1997 is also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions." 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions." 14. This judgment, therefore, provided as under: "a. The Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997 were without jurisdiction and, therefore, illegal; b. Those who had paid tax without protest under such formula, this declaration would not apply; c. Those petitioners who have approached the Court, also cannot plead no taxation. In their cases, the Corporation would assess and demand tax on the basis of formula prevailing prior to 31.03.1997." 15. These directions, however, left out a group of property owners/occupiers who had neither paid tax voluntarily as per the formula of 31.03.1997, nor challenged the very notification issued by the Commissioner by filing writ petitions. In other words, the occupiers, such as the present petitioners who had neither paid the tax, as demanded by the Corporation on the basis of the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997, nor challenged the taxation structure would be outside of the purview of the directions issued by the Court under the said judgment. Their cases will, therefore, have to be examined in such background. First thing which can be straight away seen is that though these petitioners were not before the Court in the said group of petitions, the Corporation cannot continue to levy taxes from them on the basis of 31.03.1997 tax rules since these rules were declared as ultra vires and without authority of law. The Court had made a limited departure by providing that those who have already paid up the tax without the protest, the judgment would not affect their liabilities. Since the petitioners do not fall in that category, the direct or indirect benefit of the judgment must flow to them. 16. The second thing that would emerge is that these petitioners also cannot plead zero tax regime. In other words, they cannot be taxed as per the formula of 31.03.1997. They cannot contend that for the entire period there shall be no tax liability. This has been made clear by the Division Bench in the judgment of Bhavnagar District Chamber of Industries v. State of Gujarat through the chief Secretary and ors(supra). The third thing, which is equally clear, is that by virtue of the judgment of the Court, the Corporation cannot levy tax if it is otherwise not permissible in law for any period or property. The third thing, which is equally clear, is that by virtue of the judgment of the Court, the Corporation cannot levy tax if it is otherwise not permissible in law for any period or property. In other words, by relying on the judgment of the High Court allowing to collect property tax from the owners/occupiers on the basis of pre 31.03.1997 formula, the Corporation cannot demand such tax from the petitioners if otherwise, due to some statutory impediment or the other, such tax is for any particular period not possible to be collected. 17. In this background, we may refer to the relevant rules of the Taxation Rules. The Taxation rules which are contained in Chapter VIII of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 provide for detail mechanism for fixation of the rates of tax assessment of properties and taxation and collection of taxes by the Municipal Corporation. Under sub rule (1) of Rule 1 of the Taxation Rules whenever the title of any person primarily liable for the payment of property taxes on any premises is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred have to, within three months after execution of the instrument of transfer, or after its registration, give notice of such transfer in writing to the Commissioner. Under Rule 3 of the Taxation Rules, liability for payment of tax would continue in absence of any such notice of transfer. Under Rule 5, notice is to be given to the Commissioner of the erection of a new building. Under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 when any new building erected or when any building is rebuild or enlarged or when any building which has been vacant is reoccupied or when the user of the building is changed, the person primarily liable for the property taxes assessed on the building has to within 15 days thereof give notice in writing to the Commissioner. Rule 9 req res the Corporation to maintain assessment book containing various relevant details of the properties under assessment. Rule 15 pertains to the time for filing complaints against valuation to be publicly announced. Rule 9 req res the Corporation to maintain assessment book containing various relevant details of the properties under assessment. Rule 15 pertains to the time for filing complaints against valuation to be publicly announced. Under Rule 15 in every case in which any premises for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property taxes, or in which the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the Commissioner has to issue public notice under sub rule (1). The Commissioner after issuing public notice under sub rule (1) would give a special notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature of such entry and informing him that any complaint against the same will be received at any time within 15 days from the service of special notice. Rule 16 provides for time and manner of filing complaints against the valuation. Rule 18 provides the procedure for hearing of the complaint. Rule 19 provides entries in assessment book to be conclusive evidence. Rule 20 provides for amendment in the assessment book by the Commissioner upon certain eventualities arisen, requiring such amendments. Rule 21A pertains to assessment of tax in the event of failure to give notice under Rule 5 and provides that whenever it is noticed by the Commissioner that a new building has been erected or a building has been rebuild or enlarged or any building which was vacant has been reoccupied or the user of any building has been changed and that the person primarily liable for the property taxes on such building has failed to give notice as required under Rule 5(1) the Commissioner may within a period of one year from the date on which the said relevant facts came to his notice proceed to fix or refix the ratable value of such building in accordance with the Act or the Rules. 18. It was, in background of these rules that the Division Bench of this Court in case of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jhaveri Keshavlal Lallubhai (supra) held that: "21. Mr. 18. It was, in background of these rules that the Division Bench of this Court in case of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jhaveri Keshavlal Lallubhai (supra) held that: "21. Mr. M.P. Amin lastly urged that inasmuch as Rule 350A read with Rule 243 was held to be ultra vires by the Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad on 31st August 1949 in Suit No. 124 of 1948 it was not possible for the Municipality to proceed with the hearing of the objections and the authentication of the assessment list and if therefore we accepted the view that the authentication of the assessment list must be made. within the official year the Municipality would be placed in a situation in which it would suffer loss of tax for not doing something which it was not possible for it to do and this would cause immense hardship to the Municipality. But as pointed out by me in Nadiad Municipality v. Nadiad Electricity Co. Ltd., (1964) 5 G.L.R. 82 at page 107: all arguments on the hardship of a case either on one side or the other must be rejected when I am pronouncing what the law is; for such arguments are only quicksands in the law and if indulged would soon swallow up every principle of it. If there is any hardship the appeal must be to the Legislature and not to the Court. Besides in the present case the predicament in which the Municipality finds itself is of its own making. It was because the Municipality attempted to levy an illegal tax that the levy had to be challenged and declared ultra vires. There would have been no difficulty if a legal levy had been effected. The present complaint therefore lies in the mouth of the Municipality. Moreover in any event the Municipality could have proceeded to hear the objections and to authenticate the assessment list for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49 before the expiry of the respective official years because there was no injunction against the Municipality and even so far as the official year 1949 was concerned the Municipality could have asked the High Court after filing the appeal to grant a stay of the order of the Civil Judge for the purpose of enabling it to proceed with the authentication of the assessment list. There is therefore no substance in this plea based on hardship which might be caused to the Municipality." 19. Likewise, in case of Kalyan Municipal Council and ors v. Usha Paper Products (P) Ltd. and anr (supra) the Supreme Court had observed as under: "The aforesaid statement in the judgment of this Court clearly shows that the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sholapur Municipal Corporation v. Ramchandra (supra) was approved by this Court. The decision of the aforesaid Bench of this Court is binding on us and is clearly applicable to the case before us. In that judgment this Court pointed out that once it was accepted that the process of levying the tax is complete only when the assessment list is authenticated and it is only then that the tax is levied on the ratepayers, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the authentication must be made within the official year. The tax, being a tax for the official year, must obviously be levied during the official year and since the levy of the tax is complete only when the assessment list is authenticated it must follow that the authentication must take place in the official year." 20. The fact that the Corporation can levy tax only after assessment done in accordance with the provision noted above is beyond cavil. The question is how can we apply this conclusion on the facts of the case on hand. As noted, the case of the Municipal Corporation is that the present property owners are occupying the premises within the limits of the GMB since several years. The property tax could not be collected previously due to one reason or the other. In the meantime, the Taxation Rules of 31.03.1997 came to be struck down by the High Court. The situation, therefore, now has arisen where the Corporation can levy tax only as per the pre 31.03.1997 formula. The crucial question thus has come up is for which period such tax can be allowed to be collected. In this context, we have noticed that according to the Corporation, all petitioners were served with special notices dated 08.08.2011. Though many of these petitioners have admitted to have received such notice some of them have disputed it. The crucial question thus has come up is for which period such tax can be allowed to be collected. In this context, we have noticed that according to the Corporation, all petitioners were served with special notices dated 08.08.2011. Though many of these petitioners have admitted to have received such notice some of them have disputed it. Since we are exercising writ jurisdiction, we would not enter into this disputed question and proceeded on the basis that all petitioners were served with special notices dated 08.08.2011 as amended by the Corporation. These notices, however, contained proposed tax assessment of several years past. It is true that if the situation envisaged in Rule 21A of the Taxation Rules obtained, it is open for the Commissioner to levy tax for the past period also. We have noticed that sub rule (1) of Rule 5 casts the duty on the person primarily responsible to pay the tax to notify to the Commissioner any change regarding enlargement of building or occupation of the property. If the persons so liable fails to do so, Rule 21A authorizes the Commissioner to issue a notice for collection of tax which does not limit the power of the Commissioner to collect retrospective taxes. However, it limits the power of the Commissioner to issue such notice within a period of one year from the date on which the relevant event came to his notice. In other words, Rule 21A limits the period of one year from the date of knowledge of the relevant development. The Commissioner cannot issue a notice say 10 years later of having come to know about the relevant development seeking to levy tax for the first time or at higher rate. The power of the Commissioner therefore, to assess any owner or occupier on the basis of a notice under Rule 21A would therefore necessarily be for a period not longer than one year from the date of his knowledge. 21. In none of the notices or outside, the Corporation has pleaded that the event, which would create the liability of the owner or the occupier to be assessed to tax came to the notice of the Corporation only recently though such an event might have taken place many years back. 21. In none of the notices or outside, the Corporation has pleaded that the event, which would create the liability of the owner or the occupier to be assessed to tax came to the notice of the Corporation only recently though such an event might have taken place many years back. In absence of any such even primary pleading, we would not permit the Corporation to collect taxes for the periods long prior to the issuance of special notices under Rule 15(2). The period of tax would be confined to one year prior to the date of issuance. 22. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah had, during the course of the arguments, pointed out that the assessments under the taxation formula of 31.03.1997 were by and large more liberal and more beneficial to the property owners and occupiers. The Corporation had, therefore, even after the High Court struck down the formula, offered the property owners and occupiers to be governed by such formula on voluntary basis. Such an offer was made to the petitioners also. She stated under instructions that the Corporation would even today is prepared to offer such rates to the petitioners. It would be upto the petitioners to consider such an offer. However, if any of the petitioners accept such an offer, cannot then challenge collection of tax on such basis on any ground whatsoever. This is for the reason that this offer is being made by the Corporation as a beneficial measure to the petitioners and can operate only if the petitioners accept it unconditionally. This formula is as per the rates which are struck down by the High Court and there can be no legal mechanism to decide the disputes arising therefrom. 23. A brief reference needs to be made for the period after 31.03.2013 where the Corporation has issued notices to which the petitioners have or would be in the process of responding. This Court, in case of Sahdevsinh Balvantsinh Chudasma v. State of Gujarat and anr in Special Civil Application No. 16387 of 2015 noticing that the Corporation had recently issued notices under Rule 15(2) of the Rules, gave following directions: "4. The petitioners would have time upto 1.3.2016 to raise their objections. The Municipal Corporation will consider such objections as may be received and issue fresh bills preferably by 30.5.2016. 5. The petitioners would have time upto 1.3.2016 to raise their objections. The Municipal Corporation will consider such objections as may be received and issue fresh bills preferably by 30.5.2016. 5. We notice that the petitioners dispute the user factor which according to them in majority of the cases was applied as 3 which is meant for certain kinds of commercial establishments, whereas the petitioners would argue that looking to the use, same should be one. The other contention of the petitioners was that the occupation factor of 2, which is meant for tenants could not have been applied since in many cases, the petitioners had themselves constructed godowns on leasehold lands and in such a case, according to the petitioners, the property should be treated as self occupied and factor of one should have been applied. 6. As expressed in our earlier order dated 21.1.2016, we would insist that the petitioners must deposit certain ad hoc amount with the Municipality by way of their tax liability which would be confirmed upon disposal of objections and issuance of fresh bills. On one hand, the petitioners do not dispute the liability to pay municipal tax and at the same time, even the Municipal Corporation administration cannot be expected to function without revenue. Bearing these factors in mind and broadly taking into consideration the disputes of the petitioners, we would require the petitioners to deposit 50% of the bill amounts under the respective impugned bills before the Corporation latest by 31.3.2016 inclusive of payments already made if any. If however, payment already made is in excess of 50%, the same shall not be refunded till the fresh exercise is completed. Such amount would be by way of deposit and subject to adjustment once the petitioners' tax liability is crystalised in the manner provided above." 24. Learned counsel Ms. Jani stated that all the present petitioners have also been issued similar notices and majority of the petitioners have also raised their objections. The above noted directions shall apply mutatis mutandis to these petitioners for the period past 01.04.2013 with a modification that, if any of the petitioner has not so far raised the objections, it may be done latest by 30.7.2016 and deposit the 50% tax latest by 31.08.2016. 25. Under the circumstances, the petitions are disposed of in following manner: "1. The above noted directions shall apply mutatis mutandis to these petitioners for the period past 01.04.2013 with a modification that, if any of the petitioner has not so far raised the objections, it may be done latest by 30.7.2016 and deposit the 50% tax latest by 31.08.2016. 25. Under the circumstances, the petitions are disposed of in following manner: "1. It is declared that the Corporation can levy property tax from all petitioners as per the property tax formula of pre 31.03.1997. This could be however, only for the period between 08.08.2010 and 31.03.2013. For such purpose, the Corporation shall issue fresh bills on the basis of old formula which may be done latest by 31.08.2016. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any of the contents of such bills, it would be open for them to follow the legal remedies. Post 31.03.2013, the parties are already pursuing their options in law. 2. It would be open for the petitioners or any of them to request the Corporation to apply the tax structure prescribed under 31.03.1997 notification for the aforesaid period between 08.08.2010 and 31.03.2013. However, once the person accepts such a formula, it would not be open for him to challenge the same before any forum. If the petitioners or any of them approach the Corporation for being guided on what would be the possible tax rates on such formula, we are sure the Commissioner shall depute an officer in his organization to do so." 26. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of.