Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: rateable value increase in The Municipal Corporation Of ... vs Dalamal Tower Premises, Co-Operative ... on 27 March, 2006Matching Fragments
4. On 29th March, 2001, the special notice being No. 312 of 2000-2001 was issued by the Corporation under Section 167 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, `the Act') in respect of the year 2000-2001 stating that the assessment has been amended in the official year (1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001) increasing the rateable value of the said property to Rs. 1,74,59,615/-. In the said notice, it was indicated that complaint there against may be made.
5. On 29th March, 2001 another special notice being No. 312A of 2000-2001 was issued by the Corporation under Section 162 (2) in respect of the year 2001-02 stating that the rateable value of the said property has been fixed at Rs.1,74,59,615/- for the year 2001-02 (1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002). In this notice also it was indicated that complaint there against may be made.
6. In the month of April, 2001, the petitioner filed the complaint regarding the special notices Nos.312 and 312A of 2000-2001 afore noticed which were issued on 29th March, 2001. The said complaint was registered as complaint No. ACR/310/2000-2001.
7. On 22nd March, 2002, the special notice No. 164/2001-2002 was issued by the Corporation under Section 167 in respect of the year 2001-02 stating that the assessment book had been amended for the official year 2001-02 (1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002) increasing the rateable value of the said property to Rs. 5,07,38,165/-.
34. Section 160 provides that the assessment book which is required to be prepared for the next ensuing official year must be preceded by public notice.
35. Section 161 makes a provision for inspection of the assessment book.
36. Section 162 provides that the Commissioner shall at the time and in the manner prescribed in the public notice under Section 160, fix the date and time for deciding complaints against the rateable value which is entered in the Ward Assessment Book. If the complaint is not filed then the said entry is confirmed. On the other hand, if complaint is filed, the Commissioner is required to dispose of the said complaint as provided in section 162(1). Sub-section (2) of Section 162 provides that in every case where the rateable value of any premises is liable to be increased or if the rateable value is entered in the assessment book for the first time, the Commissioner shall, after issue of public notice under Section 160 read with Section 162(1), give Page 1052 a special written notice to the owner or the occupier specifying the nature of the entry and informing him that any complaint against the increased proposed rateable value shall be received in his office within 15 days from the service of the special notice.
84. The facts have already been narrated by us in the beginning of the judgment. On 29th March, 2001, the two special notices were issued by the Corporation. The special notice No. 312/2000-2001 was issued by the Corporation under Section 167 in respect of the year 2000-2001 stating that the assessment book has been amended increasing the rateable value of the said property to Rs. 1,74,59,615/- from 1.4.2000. The other notice issued on 29th March, 2001 was under Section 162(2) in respect of the year 2001-2002 stating that the rateable value of the said property has been fixed at Rs. 1,74,59,615/- for the year 2001-2002. Again two notices were issued on 22nd March, 2002. Special Notice No. 164/2001-2002 was issued under Section 167 in respect of the year 2001-2002 stating that the assessment book has been amended increasing the rateable value to Rs. 5,07,38,165/- from 1.4.2001. Another special notice dated 22nd March, 2002 was under Section 162(2) for the year 2002-2003 stating that the rateable value of the said property has been fixed at Rs. 5,07,38,165/- for the year 2002-2003. Regarding the special notices issued on 29th March, 2001, the petitioner filed complaint in the month of April, 2001 which was registered as complaint No. ACR/310/2000-2001. In respect of the special notice issued on 22nd March, 2002, the petitioner filed complaint in the month of April, 2002 which was registered as complain No. ACR/257/2001-2002. The complaint No. ACR/310/2000-2001 was disposed of on 27.5.2002 and for the year 2000-2001 (1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001), the rateable value was fixed at Rs. 53,27,085/-. The circulars which were the foundation of the order dated 27.5.2002 were challenged before this court in the writ petitions. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 23.10.2002 on the statement made on behalf of the Corporation that the impugned circulars were being withdrawn. This court noticed that the action taken or reassessment done pursuant to the said circulars could not stand. The Court directed the Corporation to reassess the subject property for the purpose of property tax in accordance with law. The Corporation then issued letter on 20th January, 2003 recording that the assessment done for the year 2000- 2001 has been rendered in effective by the order dated 2.10.2002 and that it proposes to reassess the rateable value of the property at Rs. 1,74,59,615/-. The petitioner filed the objections in response to the said communication. The said objections were treated as part of the complaint No. ACR/310/2000-2001 (relating to special notice under Section 167 dated 29th March, 2001) and were ultimately Page 1073 disposed of by the order dated 24th March, 2004. Similarly, in respect of the year 2001-2002, the notice was sent on 12th December, 2003 that the petitioner's complaint ACR/257/2001-2002 (pursuant to the special notice under Section 167 dated 22nd March, 2002) shall be investigated and disposed of. The said complaint also came to be disposed of by the order dated 24th March, 2004. The orders passed on 24th March, 2004 are in continuation of the complaints which were registered pursuant to the notices issued on 29th March, 2001 (complaint ACR 310/2000-2001) and dated 22nd March, 2002 (ACR/257/2001-2002). If the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, it would result in absurd situation in as much as for the assessment years 2000- 2001 (1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001) and 2001-2002 (1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002), despite the liberty granted by this court, the reassessment of the property (of course in accordance with law) could never be done because the period of official years 2000- 2001 and 2001-2002 had already expired. The crucial thing is, and that we have to decide, whether the amendment in the assessment book under Section 167 becomes operative as soon as made as contended by Mr. K.K. Singhvi or such amendment in the assessment book has to undergo the procedure provided under Sections 162 to 165 and then authentication under Section 166(2) before it becomes operative.