Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anz Grindlays Bank Limited vs Municipal Corporation And Ors. on 31 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR254
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This is a petition to quash the order Annexure P-6 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') requiring the petitioner to pay enhanced house tax from 1.11.1991. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order Annexure P.9 dated 5.8.1997 passed by the Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, dismissing the appeal filed by it against the order of assessment.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner owns commercial property bearing Municipal No. 117/1 situated in Hall Bazar, Amritsar. A major portion of the first floor of the property measuring 7144 Sq. feet is in the possession of Life Insurance Corporation as a lessee of the petitioner. Vide order Annexure-P.1 dated 14.12.1981, the respondent-Corporation assessed the petitioner for house tax. On 1.2.1984, notice Annexure-P.2 was issued by the respondent-Corporation for revision of the house tax. The proposed assessment was based on the rateable value of the property Rs. 3,74,665/- for the year 1983-84. The petitioner filed detailed objections to the proposed assessment through its Manager. Vide Annexure-P.4, the Executive Officer overruled the objections and fixed the rateable value of the property at Rs. 3,74,665/- w.e.f. 1.4.1983. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Executive Officer was accepted by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, who remanded the case to the respondent-Corporation for fresh decision. On 3.2.1997, the Executive Officer of the Corporation passed the order Annexure-P.6 and determined only rental value of the property at Rs. 18,341/- per month (self-commercial) and Rs. 18,341/- (rented commercial). Feeling dissatisfied with the revised order of the assessment, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 146 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976). It also applied for stay of the proposed recovery of house tax. Vide order Annexure-P.9 dated 5.8.1997, the Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable and also on merits.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on various grounds set out in the petition but after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be set aside and it is not necessary to make adjudication on other ground of challenge raised in the writ petition.
4. A careful analysis of the order passed by the appellate authority shows that in first six paragraphs the learned Principal Secretary has briefly noticed the facts and the respective contentions urged on behalf of the parties and in the seventh paragraph he has recorded the following conclusion:-
"After going into the arguments adduced before me, the written material produced before me and the rulings as quoted, I feel that the appeal is not maintainable in the first instance, since the entire disputed amount of House Tax has not been deposited. The appellant admits that he has deposited the disputed tax only in respect of one year that is 1993-94. On the merits of the case I find that the Municipal Corporation enhanced the rent not by comparing with the actual rent received by the appellant for the first floor but by assessing the rental value on the basis of additions, alterations and renovations that would have taken place."
5. Shri M.L. Sarin criticised the order of the appellate authority by contending that it is violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, it does not contain reasons for not entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner. He submitted that if the appellate authority formed an opinion that the appeal was not maintainable without prior deposit of the amount of house tax, then an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to remove the defect in the filing of appeal by depositing the amount of arrears. Learned counsel submitted that on 6.8.1996, the petitioner has in fact deposited Rs. 3,35,422/- representing the arrears of house tax and, therefore, the dismissal of appeal on the issue of maintainability may be set aside with a direction to the appellate authority to hear the appeal or merits. Shri Sarin further submitted that the finding recorded by the appellate authority on the issue of additions, alterations and renovations in the property is based on conjectures and not on evidence and, therefore, the appellate order be quashed on the ground of error of law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fairly conceded that the amount of arrears has been deposited by the petitioner on 6.8.1997. He also admitted that the appellate order does not contain any reference to the evidence produced by the respondents regarding the additions alterations and renovations but pleaded that the Court may remand the case to the government for fresh adjudication on the appeal
6. We have given serious thought to the respective submissions and agree with Shri Sarin that the order passed by the government deserves to be voided on the ground of principles of natural justice because it does not contain reasons. It cannot be disputed that while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 146 of the Act of 1976, the government was discharging quasi-judicial functions and, therefore, it was duty bound to record cogent reasons for not accepting the request of the petitioner to hear and decide the appeal without insisting on prior deposit of the tax. In any case, the government should have given opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the tax if it felt that the appeal does not deserve to be entertained without prior deposit of the arrears of tax. In our view, the government's failure to give an opportunity to the petitioner to fulfil the requirement of the statute and also in view of the fact that the petitioner deposited the amount of arrears immediately after the rejection of its appeal, we find it just and proper to set aside the order Annexure-P.9 with the direction that the appeal filed by the petitioner be decided afresh.
7. The submission of Shri Sarin that the decision of the appellate authority to uphold the levy of enhanced house tax is based on surmises and conjunctures appears quite plausible. Prima facie, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that a finding on the issue of additions, alterations and renovations should not have been recorded without reference to the evidence produced by the respondents. However, we do not wish to record a conclusive finding on this aspect and leave the matter to be decided by the appellate authority afresh in view of our conclusion that the order passed by the appellate authority on the issue of maintainability of the appeal suffers from an error of law.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure-P.9 is quashed. The appellate authority shall hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner and the Municipal Corporation shall be free to make submissions on all points during the course of fresh hearing.
9. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority, namely, Principal Secretary Local Government, Punjab, on 2.11.1998.