Punjab-Haryana High Court
Food Corporation Of India, District ... vs Municipal Committee, Dharmakot, ... on 12 September, 2001
Author: N.K. Sud
Bench: N.K. Sud
JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J.
1. The petitioner is a statutory corporation. It is aggrieved by the demand notices dated 22.9.1992 (Annexure P-6) and 13.11.1992 (Annexure P-7), issued by the respondent requiring it to pay Rs. 31,220.80 on account of House Tax and interest thereon for the year 1992-93.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Notification dated 3.7.1980, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, certain land was excluded from the purview of Sections 61 to 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It is contended that the godowns of the petitioner in respect of which the House Tax has been levied are situated on the land mentioned in the notification dated 3.7.1980. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has filed as Annexure P-8, a certificate to that effect from the Patwari. This factual position has not been controverted by the respondent.
3. In view of this, it is held that the respondent was not justified in issuing the impugned notices requiring the petitioner to pay House Tax and consequential interest thereon for the assessment year 1992-93.
4. Faced with this position, counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was merely claiming the refund of tax illegally levied. For this purpose, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Suganmat v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1965 S.C. 1740 and Union of India and Ors. v. Orient Enterprises and Anr., A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1729.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the law laid down in the said decisions is not applicable as it is not a case of claim of refund simpliciter. He referred to the prayers made in the writ petition was for quashing of the impugned demand notices. Thus, the refund sought is merely consequential to the main prayer.
6. I am in agreement with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. It is not merely a claim for refund and, therefore, the writ petition can not be dismissed on this score. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pleaded that the respondent be directed to refund the tax recovered from it in earlier years. This prayer can not be granted in this writ petition as the demand notices of earlier years are not before me. Unless the petitioner can successfully get them vacated, the question of refund cannot arise. However, if the petitioner has any valid claim for refund for earlier years, it will be free to approach the civil courts for necessary relief, in accordance with law.
No other point has been raised.
7. In view of the above discussiois, the demand notices, Annexures P-6 and P-7, are quashed and the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of amount paid by it, if any, in pursuance of Annexures P-6 and P-7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.