Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Ludhiana vs Automatic Wood And Engineering Works on 2 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: [1991]192ITR677(P&H)
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,766.99 as refund of house tax paid by it in excess to the defendants. The courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the property of the plaintiff was assessed to house tax on the annual rental value of Rs. 1,400 up to the year 1970-71. During the year 1971-72, the annual rental value of the property was assessed at Rs. 20,750 by an order dated March 29, 1971. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order enhancing the assessment which was ultimately decided by an order dated May 17, 1974. The appellate authority set aside the order assessing the plaintiff's property at an annual rental value of Rs. 20,750 and held that the annual rental value of the property was only Rs. 1,400 per month. The plaintiff having paid the tax for the year 1971-72 at the enhanced rate, and, in the meanwhile, for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 also, claimed refund thereof which came to Rs. 5,766.99 after leaving the tax on the annual rental value of Rs. 1,400 as assessed.
3. The defendant-Municipal Corporation contested the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds but mainly on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the plaintiff, not having preferred appeals against the orders of assessment for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 was not entitled to refund. The courts below, after considering the respective contentions of the parties, decreed the suit. It is against this judgment and decree of the courts below that the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, has filed this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged before me the finding recorded by the courts below only on issue No. 6 which is to the following effect: -.
Issue No. 6 :
"Whether the act of the defendants in realising the house tax in dispute is illegal and ultra vires as alleged ? OPP"
5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff filed an appeal against the assessment order for the year 1971-72 which was set aside by the appellate authority by an order dated May 17, 1974. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to refund for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 as no appeal against the orders of assessment for these two years had been preferred. He supports his submission by relying upon the provisions of Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which provides that an appeal against the assessment or levy of any tax or against the refusal to refund any tax under this Act shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner or to such other officer as may be empowered by the State Government in that behalf. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is well settled that, in matters of taxation, there is no question of res judicata because, each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern the later years because it determines only the tax for a particular period. Learned counsel for this proposition relied upon Instalment Supply Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 53 and New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 49 ITR (SC) 137 ; AIR 1964 SC 318.
6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel and do not find any merit therein. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that, in matters of taxation, each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern the later years. But, both the authorities quoted above have no application to the facts of the present case. Section 68 of the Act provides that a Municipal Committee may, in its discretion, prepare for the whole or any part of the Municipal Committee, a new assessment list every year or adopt the valuation and assessment contained in the list for any year with such alterations as may, in a particular case, be deemed necessary, as valuation and assessment for the year following.
7. In the present case, the assessment for the year 1971-72 was adopted by the Municipal Committee for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 in so far as the plaintiff is concerned. Since the assessment as framed by the Municipal Committee for the year 1971-72 had been set aside by the appellate authority, the adoption of assessment for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, obviously, in my view, should be the one that was found by the appellate authority, i.e., at the annual rental value of Rs. 1,400 and not Rs. 20,750. The tax paid by the plaintiff during the period the appeal remained pending against the assessment year 1971-72 at the enhanced rate was thus liable to be refunded. It could not be said that, by simply adopting the assessment list of the year 1971-72 for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the annual rental value would continue to be Rs. 20,750 irrespective of the fact that the annual rental value for the year 1971-72 was reduced to Rs. 1,400 per month.
8. No other point was raised or argued before me.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such but with no order as to costs.