Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) Before making any amendment under sub-section (1) the Chairperson shall give to any person affected by the amendment, notice of not less than one month that he proposes to make the amendment and consider any objection which may be made by such person."

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment to the assessment list for increasing the rateable value can take place in terms of the provisions of Section 72(1) of the said Act subject to the proviso to the said sub-section which stipulates that there can be no liability to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year in which the notice under sub-section (2) is given. Sub-section (2) mandates that the affected person shall be given a notice of not less than one month proposing to make the amendment and to consider any objections which may be filed by such person.

This acceptance is limited to the rateable values only and not the tax assessed and is without prejudice and does not preclude our legal rights to appeal in case we feel aggrieved with the orders ultimately passed in this case.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully JAYSHREE KUMAR"

12. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner himself had stated that the petitioner had been given to understand that the computation of the rateable value for the above stated and subsequent financial year would be calculated on the basis of the following rateable value set out in the letter. It was further stated by the petitioner that they were agreeable to clear their dues in case the assessment is done on the above basis. It is thus contended that the petitioner agreed to pay the enhanced tax on account of increase of rateable value from 1.12.1996 onwards.

25. There can be no doubt that the provision in question being a taxing section under the said Act has to be construed strictly. The mode and manner has been prescribed in the said section for increase of rateable value. The observations referred to by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy and Anr. Case (supra) and Padma Sundra Rao (dead) and Ors. case (supra) would thus squarely apply to the present case.

26. There is also force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Keshav Adke (dead) by LRs (supra) relying upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed case (supra) that since the power has been given to the respondent Council to increase the rateable value only in a particular manner, it is only in that manner that it can be increased. The mandate to do so implies a prohibition to do the same in any other manner. The Supreme Court has further held in Firm Muar Case (supra) that equitable principles can have no application to taxing statutes and the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is only a species of estoppel which cannot operate against the provisions of such statute. It is thus not open for the respondent to contend that since the consequence of the non-increase of the rateable value will be that the petitioner would not be liable for the increased tax prior to the issuance of notice, the respondent is liable to impose tax for the same. This contention would in fact negate the negative clause contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72.

28. In my considered view, in fact there could have been no such consent in view of the mandate in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72. The said proviso makes a person non-liable to tax or increase of tax as a consequence of an amendment of the list prior to the issuance of the notice under sub-section (2) of the Act.

29. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the assessing authority as also the impugned bill cannot be sustained to the extent that they seek to assess and recover tax on increased rateable value for the period prior to 01.04.1998. The petitioner thus would not be liable to pay the increased tax for the period 01.12.1996 to 31.03.1998.