Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Ashok Hotel Corporation Ltd vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 4 December, 2013
W.A. No.1240/2013
04.12.2013
Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Heard counsel for the parties.
We are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge, which is founded on the Apex Court in the case of Western Coal Fields Limited V. Special Area Development Authority, Korba and another, (1982) 1 SCC 125 and followed in subsequent decision in the cases of Dum Dum Municipality and other V. Indian Tourism Development Corporation and others, (1995) 5 SCC 251 and Western Coalfields Limited V. Municipal Council, Birsinghpur Pali and another, (1999) 3 SCC 290. These decisions pointedly deal with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) which provision is perimateria to the provisions applicable to the case in hand. This fact is not disputed.
As a result, we are not inclined to interfere with the said opinion of the learned Single Judge. The grievance of the appellant is that the other two contentions regarding the quantum of demand and the liability of payment has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
In the first place, that contention was not pursued before the learned Single Judge as there is nothing to indicate in the impugned judgment that the same was argued before the learned Single Judge. In any case, the appellant will have to first resort to the regime provided in the Act by filing objection to the assessment already done by the authority by way of objection under Section 175 of the Act which will then be adjudicated by the concerned authority on its own merit in accordance with law.
The argument of the appellant that it will be open to the appellant to raise the issue which has already been answered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, in our opinion, is preposterous. That contention cannot be agitated again in the successive assessment year regarding exemption from paying any property tax. The appellant can only agitate the other aspects concerning the assessment done by the authorities under Section 147 of the Act. If such objection is filed within two weeks from today, the Corporation shall not take any coercive action for a period of four weeks thereafter and within that time, the objection should be decided by the appropriate authority and the decision so taken be communicated to the appellant within the same time. The appellant would be free to challenge the same, if aggrieved by the said decision, by way of appropriate proceedings.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Certified copy as per rules.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)
Chief Justice Judge
snb/-