Calcutta High Court
Land And Bricks And Entertainments ... vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 6 January, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 (NOC) 258 (CAL.)
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Original Side
W.P. No. 46 of 2016
Land and Bricks and Entertainments Limited & Anr.
Vs.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
For the petitioners:- Mr. Arindam Banerjee
Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar
.....Advocates
For the KMC: - Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh
Mr. Barin Banerjee
Mr. Dilip Chatterjee
Mr. Debangshu Mondal
...Advocates
Judgement On: - 6th January, 2017
I.P. MUKERJI, J.
Section 179 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is the subject matter of interpretation, in this writ application. The said section provides for making of the annual assessment and revision thereof every six years. The two provisos under Section 179 (2) of the said Act is the subject matter of interpretation. The two provisos are set out below:
" provided that when annual valuation of any land or building has not be revised on the expiry of any such period for reasons to be recorded in writing, the previous annual valuation shall continue to remain in force until it is so revised:
"Provided further that the Municipal Commissioner may, on the expiry of such period, revise the annual valuation of such land or building at any time and such revised valuation shall take effect from the beginning of the quarter from which the annual valuation would have been revised under this clause."
Mr. Banerjee has tried to interpret these two provisos in the following way. If the annual valuation has not been revised and the reasons for it recorded in writing, the previous annual valuation would remain inforce. He argues that if there are no reasons for not undertaking a revision after six years, then the whole assessment would fall through. The valuation has to be taken as zero. Hence, the tax payable is also to be taken as nil.
We are concerned with the valuation of 37A, Bentinck Street, Kolkata-60. This premises contains a ground and four storeyed building. It was always owned by the first petitioner from 1987 onwards. They have sold portions of the ground and first floor and the entire second, third and fourth floors to several parties.
The first petitioner continues to be the owner of 6638 sq.ft. of area on the ground floor and 4621 sq.ft. on the first floor totalling 11260 sq.ft. Save and except one room the entire of this part of the premises, ("the premises") has been let out.
On 10th May, 2010 the annual valuation of the premises was fixed at Rs. 1,82,480/- from the 2nd quarter of 2009-2010 with non-residential annual valuation at Rs. 1,29,760/-. This valuation was for six years. The petitioner says that since the valuation of the premises was not revised after the expiry of six years, and no reasons have been recorded by the respondent corporation for not doing so, this valuation lapsed. Thus, no tax was leviable or payable thereon from 1st July, 2015 or the 2nd quarter 2015- 2016.
However, on 16th April, 2015 they received a tax bill from the respondent corporation for the year 2015-2016 claiming property tax from the first to the fourth quarter 2015-16. The presentation dates for the quarters were 13th April, 2015, 1st July, 2015, 8th October, 2015 and 6th January, 2016. On 24th April, 2015 the petitioners made payment of this bill. In this writ they claim a declaration that this property bill was erroneously raised in as much as the Corporation could not have made any valuation of the property. The petitioners claim refund of the property tax paid from 1st July, 2015. Let me first remark that this is the most adventurous writ application that this court could ever entertain. Here is a petitioner who has made payment of the entire demand and turns around to claim refund raising issues, which to say the least, are great theoretical exercises in statutory interpretation. Section 179 (1) second proviso provides that an annual valuation shall be made of any land or building. Section 179 (2) (c) says that this valuation shall remain inforce for a period of six years. Section 179 (2) (d) provides that such valuation may be revised after expiry of six years. Some words are in my opinion of crucial importance. The first is "determined" the second is "remain inforce" and third is "revised on the expiration of each such period".
Now, at some point of time or the other the determination of valuation of the premises has to be done. Once this has been determined it remains inforce for six years. What happens after six years? According to the wording of the second proviso, it loses its force if it is not revised after six years. The valuation losing its force simply means that this valuation cannot be enforced. To this extent Mr. Banerjee is right. But the valuation does not become zero. It is against common sense and logic. The valuation of a premises being X on a particular day cannot by the turn of the clock be reduced to zero. All that happens is that the valuation cannot be enforced to claim tax. It remains suspended. The only exception is when reasons are recorded for not revising the valuation. In that event the previous annual valuation remains inforce.
The second proviso makes the situation clearer. In that event the Commissioner has the power to revise the valuation from any anterior date. It is true that there is no revision in valuation of the premises after the first quarter 2015-2016. Therefore, this valuation upto first quarter 2015-16 cannot be enforced for the second quarter 2015-16 onwards, although the valuation remains. The respondent corporation ought not to have raised a bill on the petitioner claiming property taxes for the period starting from 1st July, 2015.
The respondent Corporation is to act on the basis of the observation made above. It is open for them to take steps according to law to revise the annual valuation of the petitioner's property, through the Commissioner under the second proviso. If they do not do so they will obliged to refund the property tax collected for the 2nd quarter 2015-16 to 4th quarter 2015-16 after cancelling the demand.
Order in terms of prayer (b), (c) and (d) of the petition. This writ application is allowed to the above extent.
Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)