Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vijai Shree Pvt. Ltd vs The Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors on 25 June, 2018
Author: Sahidullah Munshi
Bench: Sahidullah Munshi
1 S/L 4 25.06.2018Ct. No. 6
SD W.P. 28491(W) of 2017 Vijai Shree Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. The Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Pushan Kar Mr. Abhishek Bhattacharya ... for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Behani ... for the Howrah Municipal Corporation.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the inflated and illogical valuation made by so called Review Committee constituted by the Howrah Municipal Corporation for assessing annual valuation of the petitioner's premises which is claimed to be a jute mill in the writ petition.
In the writ petition, it was contended by the petitioner that previously the premises was valued at Rs.3,13,000/- only whereupon the rates and taxes assessed by the Authority was for a sum of Rs.29,931/- for each of the quarters in 2016-2017. The petitioner found that the authority proposed to enhance the valuation at Rs.34,84,680/-. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an objection to the Howrah Municipal Corporation contending, inter alia, that although there has been no development and/or addition, alteration in the existing structure at the premises in question, the proposed annual valuation was illegal and not based on relevant laws. However, on the basis of such objection, a notice of hearing was issued by the Deputy Assessor, Howrah Municipal Corporation on April 17, 2017 and the notice shows that there was a hearing on May 3, 2017. After such hearing, the petitioner has been provided with a bill which shows that annual valuation has been fixed at Rs.26,10,510/- which is much in excess of the initial annual valuation of Rs.3,13,000/- as assessed in the financial year 2016-2017.
The petitioner further contends that although hearing was given and subsequently, bill has been issued proposing for the municipal rates and taxes for a sum of Rs.1,87,549/- per quarter w.e.f. first quarter in the year 2017-2018 but no reason has been assigned as to on what basis the Howrah Municipal Corporation arrived at such a decision to enhance the annual valuation and the revised tax.
2Mr. Behani, learned Counsel appearing for the Howrah Municipal Corporation filed affidavit-in-opposition. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition shows that they have denied the contention of the petitioner which is made in paragraph 17 to 23 in the writ petition. But his denial is a general denial. No specific averment to the petitioner's contention in paragraph 3, 9 & 12 of the writ petition has been made. In the affidavit-in- opposition, the Howrah Municipal Corporation has sought to justify the decision of the Review Committee regarding enhancement of huge amount of tax without keeping any parity with the earlier assessment. In paragraph 4 the authority has disclosed that annual valuation was calculated only upon the land for an amount of Rs.62,15,500/- and thereafter, such deduction of 30% was offered bringing it down to Rs.43,50,850/-.
It has further been contended by the Municipal Corporation that a special discount of 20% was again given for making the annual valuation to Rs.34,80,680/-. Averment has also been made that Review Committee allowed a further discount of 25% thereby bringing down the annual valuation to Rs.26,10,510/-.
In such background, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if so much of discounts are made available to the petitioner, what led the authority to increase more than 10% which according to him is permissible under the law. However, while making such statement of discounts, this Court does not understand as to why such discounts were at all given in respect of the petitioner. No copy of the decision of the Review Committee has also been furnished in this Court either by way of making annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition or separately. Therefore, Municipal Corporation has failed to substantiate it's averments in the opposition.
After hearing the parties and after considering the material disclosed, this Court expresses its anguish that the matter has not been considered in its proper perspective. The authority while taking a decision to enhance the annual valuation has not applied its mind in accordance with the provisions of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Mr. Behani submits that however, authority gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and at the time of hearing, the petitioner did not urge all these points what have been now urged before this Court.
However, without going into this dispute, it is settled law that an authority deciding a case must assign reason and should do everything in a transparent manner so that 3 nobody can raise any doubt and that being lacking in the present case, the order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned bill dated October 26, 2017 is set aside with a direction upon the appropriate authority of the Howrah Municipal Corporation to reassess the annual valuation within a period of four weeks from date of communication of this order after giving fullest opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till that time, the petitioner shall continue to pay the monthly rates and taxes on ad hoc basis subject to the final outcome of the decision to be made by the Howrah Municipal Corporation in pursuance of this Court's order.
With these directions, W.P. 28491(W) of 2017 is disposed of.
(Sahidullah Munshi, J.)