Whether Municipal appeal is maintainable against issuance of property tax bill?

  It is now well-settled that the right to file an appeal is a creation of the statute. Section 406(1) provides of appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act. Reference to rateable value in Sub-section (1) of Section 406, necessarily, pertains to tax on property. In view of the fact that under Section 127, other taxes such as taxes on vehicles, boats, animals, octroi, etc., are also levied, Sub-section (1) of Section 406 also refers to appeals against "tax fixed or charged" under the Act. Section 406(2)(b) specifically relates to appeal against a rateable value and Sub-clause (d) relates to appeal against any amendment made in the assessment book for property tax. It is not necessary to refer to Sub-clause (d) because that pertains to deposit of tax pending the entertainment of the appeal. Sub-clause (b) and (d), as we have already observed, postulate in relation to property tax appeals being filed only against rateable value. Sub-clause (c) of Section 406(2), no doubt, contemplates filing of an appeal against any tax. But, this sub-clause contemplates an appeal against such a tax in respect of which provisions exist for filing a complaint and the complaint being disposed of. Neither the Act, nor the Rules contemplate any complaint being filed against a bill a property tax and complaints, relating to property tax can only be filed against the rateable value. The Legislative intent, therefore, clearly is that it is only at the first stage, viz., the determination of the rateable value, that the appeals will be entertained and no appeal can be preferred against a bill levying tax as a consequence of the rateable value having been determined. The reason for this is obvious. The sending of a bill levying tax would amount to a mere mathematical calculation on the basis of the rateable value which is determined. If the determination of the rateable value can only be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 406(2)(b) or (d) and the same cannot be challenged once it has become final, then providing for appeal against the tax calculated on the basis of the rateable value would be meaningless.{Para 83}

84. It may happen that the rateable Value I may have been determined in gross violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules and without following the procedure laid down in the Rules requiring giving the opportunity of filing a complaint by giving a public notice or a special notice. Where an owner has had an occasion or opportunity to file a complaint under the Rules against the proposed rateable value, but he fails to do so, no relief can be granted to him. If, on the other hand, in a rate case, such an opportunity has not at all been afforded, then merely for equitable reasons a Court should not and cannot entertain an appeal against the bill because such a provision does not exist. The appropriate remedy in such a case will be for the owner to take recourse to the constitutional remedies provided by Article 227 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Under which circumstances tenant can file a municipal appeal against fixation of rateable value?

 

The last question, which requires consideration is whether the occupiers or the tenants have a right of filing a complaint and thereafter, an appeal against the proposed assessments. Under Section 127 of the BPMC Act, various types of taxes are imposed. They are property taxes, and taxes, on vehicles, boats and animals. In addition thereto, the Corporation may also impose octroi, taxes on dogs, theatre tax, toll on animals and vehicles entering the city, etc. Section 406 is a provision, which, inter alia, provides for appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act. Unlike other statutes, the Section does not specifically state as to who can file an appeal. The locus standi of the appellant will, however, have to be inferred from Sub-section (2) of Section 406. Clause (b) of Section 406(2) states that no appeal shall be entertained in respect of a rateable value unless a complaint has been previously, made to the Commissioner and such complaint has been disposed of. Clause (d) provides that an appeal against an amendment made in the assessment book shall be entertained only if a complaint has been disposed of. The implication of this, clearly, is that a right of appeal is given to such a person, who has a right to file a complaint to the Commissioner against the rateable value. This right to file a complaint is exercised only when, under Rule 16, a complaint is filed. The scheme of the Act and the Rules clearly is that the person primarily liable to pay the property tax is the owner or the lessor. Against the proposed rateable value, it is he, who is the person concerned or the person aggrieved. Rateable value once determiend can be adopted Under Rule 21 for the subsequent years. A tenant may come and go, but it is the owner, who is primarily concerned with the determination of the rateable value. As we have already observed, the Act and the Rules do not contemplate more than one complaint being filed in respect of the same property and for the same year. The Rules cannot be interpreted to lead to a result, where there will be conflicting assessment orders in respect of a single official year for the same property. It is no doubt true that it has been held in a number of cases that a person aggrieved will, certainly, have a right of appeal. But, who is the person aggrieved? In the case of rateable value, it can only be the owner and no one else. Under Section 139(1), the liability to pay the tax is fastened on the owner. The liability of the tenant of built-up premises is there only if tax remains unpaid and a notice under Section 140(1) arises'. Such a tenant, to whom a notice is issued under Section 140(1) may have a right to file an appeal under Section 406(2)(c), or under Section 406(1) itself. But, his right can only be in relation to the correctness of a notice issued under Section 140(1). He cannot challenge the fixation of the rateable value because that can only be challenged by the owner. Like other taxing statutes, direct or indirect, the right to file an appeal is only on the assessee. The fixation of rateable value cannot affect the tenant unless and until a notice under Section 140(1) is received by him. That notice is in the nature of a garnishee order and the payment made by him is not paid on his own account, but is paid on account of the landlord, or owner, and that is why Sub-section (4) of Section 140 provides that for any sum so paid by the occupier, he is entitled to the credit of the amount so paid by him. {Para 80}

81. It was vehemently contended that under Rule 15(2), notice is contemplated to be given to the occupier as well and, therefore, he can also file an appeal. As we have already noticed, the notice under Rule 15(2) to an occupier will necessarily be because of provisions of Rule 12(2). There may also be another category of tenants, who would be entitled to file complaints and receive notice under Rule 15(2). Those tenants would be the ones mentioned in Section 139(2). The said provision provides that if any land has been let for any term exceeding one year to a tenant and such tenant has built upon the land, the property taxes assessed upon the said land and upon the building erected thereon shall be primarily leviable on the said tenant or on any person deriving title through him. Therefore, when in Rule 15(2), reference is made to the owner or the occupier, it contemplates not only an occupier, who becomes liable by virtue of Rule 15(2), but it will also take in its ambit a tenant of land who becomes a person primarily liable to pay tax on the building erected on tenanted land. Because such a tenant is a person primarily liable to pay tax therefore, he will have a right to file an appeal.

82. It was also urged on behalf of the appellants, that the Small Cause Courts have, in some cases, been entertaining appeals against the bills raising the tax demand, even though no complaints had been filed and/or the rateable value had become final. Such appeals were filed by the tenants and, in some cases, by the owners themselves.

83. It is now well-settled that the right to file an appeal is a creation of the statute. Section 406(1) provides of appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act. Reference to rateable value in Sub-section (1) of Section 406, necessarily, pertains to tax on property. In view of the fact that under Section 127, other taxes such as taxes on vehicles, boats, animals, octroi, etc., are also levied, Sub-section (1) of Section 406 also refers to appeals against "tax fixed or charged" under the Act. Section 406(2)(b) specifically relates to appeal against a rateable value and Sub-clause (d) relates to appeal against any amendment made in the assessment book for property tax. It is not necessary to refer to Sub-clause (d) because that pertains to deposit of tax pending the entertainment of the appeal. Sub-clause (b) and (d), as we have already observed, postulate in relation to property tax appeals being filed only against rateable value. Sub-clause (c) of Section 406(2), no doubt, contemplates filing of an appeal against any tax. But, this sub-clause contemplates an appeal against such a tax in respect of which provisions exist for filing a complaint and the complaint being disposed of. Neither the Act, nor the Rules contemplate any complaint being filed against a bill a property tax and complaints, relating to property tax can only be filed against the rateable value. The Legislative intent, therefore, clearly is that it is only at the first stage, viz., the determination of the rateable value, that the appeals will be entertained and no appeal can be preferred against a bill levying tax as a consequence of the rateable value having been determined. The reason for this is obvious. The sending of a bill levying tax would amount to a mere mathematical calculation on the basis of the rateable value which is determined. If the determination of the rateable value can only be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 406(2)(b) or (d) and the same cannot be challenged once it has become final, then providing for appeal against the tax calculated on the basis of the rateable value would be meaningless.

84. It may happen that the rateable Value I may have been determined in gross violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules and without following the procedure laid down in the Rules requiring giving the opportunity of filing a complaint by giving a public notice or a special notice. Where an owner has had an occasion or opportunity to file a complaint under the Rules against the proposed rateable value, but he fails to do so, no relief can be granted to him. If, on the other hand, in a rate case, such an opportunity has not at all been afforded, then merely for equitable reasons a Court should not and cannot entertain an appeal against the bill because such a provision does not exist. The appropriate remedy in such a case will be for the owner to take recourse to the constitutional remedies provided by Article 227 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

85. In the case of a tenant to whom provisions of Section 139(2) are applicable, an opportunity is required to be given for filing a complaint and in such a case, the question of his filing an appeal only against the bill would not arise. Where, in respect of premises a tenant is required to make payment pursuant to a bill issue under Sub-section (1) of Section 140, the tenant may be a person aggrieved. His grievance, however, cannot be with respect to the rateable value, which is determined after notice is issued to the owner and the tenants grievance can only be limited to the validity of such a bill being issued to him under said Section 140(1). In such a case, as liability is fastened on him, but he had opportunity to challenge the rateable value, an appeal would be maintainable under Sub-section (1) of Section 406 itself. The scope of the appellate jurisdiction in such a case will, however, be very limited. As already observed, there can be no challenge to the fixation of the rateable value and the limited challenge which can be there is with regard to the calculation of the tax on the basis of the rateable value already finalised or when the necessary ingredients of Sub-section (1) of Section 140 exist which could justify the issuance of a bill under that provision.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Will the reduction of property tax by the Appellate court affect property tax of subsequent year if the commissioner has adopted property tax of that year?

  It was further submitted that any judgment delivered by the Judge in respect of a particular official year, even though such judgment may be delivered after two years, becomes effective and operative retrospectively and would relate back to the commencement of the official years, for which the appeal is decided by the Judge. An example which was given was that if the appeal for 1981-82 was decided on 31st October, 1984, and the rateable value fixed by the Commissioner at Rs.5,000/- was reduced to Rs. 1,500/- then the judgment would have to be given effect to for the year commencing from 1-4-1981 and for all subsequent years notwithstanding that entries are made by the Commissioner, in the meantime, for the assessment years 1982-83, and 1983-84. It was contended that, by virtue of Section 413(2), the original entry of Rs. 5,000/- shall be deemed to have been made at Rs. 1,500/- on account of the effect of the judgment delivered by the Judge for the year 1981-82 and operation of law for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 the assessment must be regarded as having been reduced to Rs. 1,500/- and then, in respect of those years or future years if the rateable value is to be increased to the figure of Rs. 5,000/- a special written notice, as contemplated by R. 15(2), has to be given. {Para 76}

77. There can be no doubt that according to Rule 21, the entries of the earlier year can be adopted for the subsequent years. Furthermore every rateable value which is fixed, against which appeal is not filed or every appellate order, which becomes final, has to be given effect to. We, are however, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that, in the example given above, by him, for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-'84 and onwards, a notice under Rule 15(2) has to be issued, because for the year 1981-'82, the appellate court had reduced the rateable value to Rs. 1,500/- after entries for 1982-'83 and 1983-'84 have been adopted. In the very example, which is given, it is contemplated that the entry for 1981-'82 was finalised after the issuance of a valid notice under Rule 15(2). As long as that entry of Rs. 5,000/- for the year 1981-'82 remains, the same could be adopted by the Commissioner in the subsequent years 1982-'83 and 1983-'84. If after such adoption for the years 1982-'83 and 1983-'84, the appellate court in respect of the assessment year 1981-'82 allows the appeal and reduces the rateable value, the decision in the said appeal can only be regarded as being given for the assessment year 1981-'82. In taxation, each year is to be regarded as distinct and separate. The Act does not postulate that the appellate decision for one year will, ipso facto, be regarded as a decision for the other years as well. As long as appeals have been filed before the Small Cause Court, or to the High Court, the assessment cannot be regarded as having become final.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Should Municipal Corporation give general particulars like the assessment method in the special notice issued for assessing property tax?

 It was vehemently contended that the special notice, which is issued must mention material particulars, like method of assessment, carpet area, letting rate, as also the reasons for fixing the gross rateable value at a particular figure so that the concerned asses-see can effectively and specifically file his objections and meet with the case of the Tax Department and produce relevant and matching evidence in support of his contentions. {Para 74}

 What are the requirements of a notice which are stipulated in Rule 15(2)? Notice under Section 15(2) is issued after entry in the assesment book has been made. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 requires that the special written notice to the owner or the occupier shall specify the nature of such entry. In other words, the special notice must inform the owner about the entries mentioned in Rule 9, Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), because the said Rule 15 has to be read with Rules 9 and 13. When a statute specifies as to what should be the contents of a notice, and that is so specified in Rule 15(2), the general principles enunciated by the aforesaid decisions and of other High Courts would not be applicable.

For the purposes of giving an opportunity to an owner or an occupier to file a complaint, all that he has to be informed is what the Commissioner has entered in the assessment book. One of the items, which is entered, is the ratable value. The Commissioner is under no obligation to inform as to how the rateable value, which is entered in the assessment book, has been arrived at. It is for the owner to complain if he finds the rateable value to be high. The principles for fixation of rateable value are well-known. Ordinarily, a rateable value will be arrived at after particulars had been given by the owners or occupiers under Rule 8 of the Rules. On the receipt of the notice, it will be for the complainant to lead evidence and prove as to what should be the correct rateable value. A hearing is contemplated by Rule 18 and if the assessee requires any clarification with regard to the entry made in the assesssment book, we see no reason as to why this clarification would not, ordinarily, be given. Be that as it may, Rule 15(2) docs not require the giving of any particulars in addition to what is stated therein. The aforesaid decisions of various Courts, therefore, can be of no assistance to the respondents. {Para 75}

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Under which circumstances can the court determine the correct rateable value of the property for assessing property tax?

  But, where the principle of waiver does not apply and a notice under Rule 15(2) is not issued and an assessment is made, then after coming to the conclusion that the assessment is a nullity, can the Small Cause Court quash the assessment simpliciter or does it have a duty or jurisdiction to take further action in the matter. {Para 68}

69. The provisions of Rule 20 clearly show that the power of the Commissioner to make changes in the entry can be exercised only during the official year itself. Once this official year is over, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to make any alteration. In Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, 1993(2) G. L. H. 897, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court, after examining the scheme of the Act, that the assessment must be completed before the close of the relevant official year and once the official year has expired, the Commissioner cannot assess and levy property tax and, therefore, the Court also cannot issue direction to the Commissioner to do something which was not permissible under the Act. The quashing of the assessment would mean that the Commissioner would not be in a position to reassess and levy property taxes and the taxes for those official years would be totally lost to the Corporation. This being the position, the appellate court cannot and should not set aside the assessment and remand the case for de novo assessment by the Commissioner. Any remand would, obviously, serve no useful purpose.

70. In view of the aforesaid position in law, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that in such cases, the Chief Judge or the Judges of the Small Cause Court themselves should determine the rateable value in accordance with law. The counsel for the respondents, however, contended that if the assessment is a nullity, because of non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 15(2), or otherwise, then the Small Cause Court has no option but to quash the assessment, in toto.

71. The principle underlying the judgment in Anant Mill's case clearly answers the aforesaid question in favour of the Corporation. In that case, it had been contended that the Chief Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the grounds affecting legality of the assessment. It was also submitted in that case, on behalf of the assessee, that if the Chief Judge came to the conclusion that the method of assessment was illogical or irrelevant and the assessment, therefore, invalid, then it would not be competent for the Chief Judge to determine the rateable value afresh by applying the appropriate method in a correct manner. Elaborating further, it was submitted that all that the Chief Judge would be able to do would be to declare the assessment invalid and leave it to the Commissioner to make a fresh assessment according to the correct method and this would, again, result in the Corporation losing the tax altogether. Similar is the contention raised before us, namely, that the assessment is bad as proper procedure is not followed. Rejecting the submission, the Division Bench, in Anant Mills' case, at page 922, observed as follows :--

".....This contention is also, in our opinion, without substance. It ignores the scheme of the provisions in regard to appeals contained in the Act. We have already pointed out that an appeal may be preferred against the rateable value and in this appeal the assessee would challenge the determination of the rateable value made by the Commissioner. He may challenge it on any ground available to him and such ground may well relate to the method of valuation adopted for the purpose of determining the rateable value. It is apparent from the provision in Section 409 Sub-section (1) and particularly the words "before evidence as to value has been adduced" that the appeal against rateable value is in the nature of an original proceeding where evidence as to value may be led by both parties. The Chief Judge may on the application of a party to the appeal appoint a competent person to make the valuation and such person may be called as a witness and if he is so-called, he may be cross-examined by the other side. The evidence as to value which may be adduced before the Chief Judge in the appeal may be based on any method which is regarded by the party or his witness as appropriate. It cannot be restricted to the method of valuation adopted by the Commissioner. So also when a competent person is directed to make a valuation, he may value it according to the method which he regards as proper there is no requirement in the statute that his, valuation must be based on the method adopted by the Commissioner. The entire question as to retable value would be open before the Chief Judge and as contemplated under Section 411 Clause (a), it would be for the Chief Judge to fix the ratable value and the decision of the Chief Judge fixing the ratable value would be final, subject to appeal to the High Court and the Commissioner would be bound to give effect to such decision as provided in Section 413. The whole scheme of the provisions clearly contemplates that in the appeal against the ratable value, the Chief Judge would have to fix the ratable value after considering the evidence as to value which may be adduced before him and it is implicit in this process that he would also have to decide which method of valuation should be adopted. If, therefore, the Chief Judge takes the view that the contractor's test method is inappropriate or inapplicable, he can decide which other method should be adopted and fix the rateable value by applying such method on the basis of the evidence before him."

It was contended by Shri Modi that such a course would be clearly contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Martin Burn Limited v. Calcutta Municipal Corproation, AIR 1966 SC 529 and that if the order of assessment is not valid, because of non-compliance with Rule 15(2), or any other Rule, then the Court would have no jurisdiction to undertake the exercise of fixing the ratable value itself. Similar contention was also raised in Anant Mills case. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1928, and compared the same with the provisions of the Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation Act, and then observed as follows:--

".... This decision given on the basis of a scheme of taxation contained in the Calcutta Act can hardly be of any relevance when we are considering a question arising under a totally different scheme of taxation contained in the Corporation Act. The power of the Court of Small Cause under the Calcutta Act was to cancel the assessment or to revise or alter the valuation and the Supreme Court held that since the method on the basis of which the valuation was made by the Corporation was illegal, the Court of Small Cause could not do anything except cancel the assessment; it would not make an independent valuation itself by adopting the correct method, for that would not be revision or alteration of the valuation. But here under the Corporations Act the power of the Chief Judge in appeal against rateable value is not restricted merely to revision or alteration of the valuation. On the contrary it is a wide power conferred in general terms without any words of limitation. It says that an appeal against the rateable value shall be heard and determined by the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge is empowered to fix the rateable value after considering the evidence a to value adduced before him and the Commissioner is enjoined to give effect to the decision of the Chief Judge. The principles of the decision in Martin Burn's case can, therefore, have no application under the Corporation Act.

30. The result of this discussion is that if we quash and set aside the assessment made by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner on any of these grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners, the tax for the official years 1967-68 and 1968-69 would be lost to the Corporation whereas no such drastic consequence would ensue if these grounds are left to be decided by the Chief Judge in the appeals preferred by the petitioners. The Chief Judge can entertain these grounds and if he is of the view that the contractors method adopted by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner is not proper or relevant to the determination of the annual rental value, he can determine the annual rental value of the premises by applying the appropriate method and the tax can be levied on the petitioners on the basis of such ratable value. The latter alternative would do full justice to the peitioners without causing grave and undue hardship which would inevitably result to the Corporation if the former alternative were adopted. We, therefore, refuse to entertain these grounds in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. They can be decided by the Chief Judge in the appeals preferred by the petitiones...."

We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations in Anant Mill's case. Following the said ratio, it would mean that even if the assessment is held to be not in accordance with law, whether because of the wrong method followed with regard to determining the rateable value or because of any irregularity or illegality in procedure or because of violaton of the principles of natural justice or because notice under Rule 15(2) had not been issued, then the Small Cause Court would itself have the jurisdiction to examine evidence and determine the correct rateable value. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Small Cause Court to merely quash the assessment, which would have the effect that for the official years in question, the entire tax would be lost to the Corporation. In effect, the ratio decidendi of the decision in Anant Mills' case is that the Small Cause Court exercises the same power and will have the same jurisdiction, which is exercised by the Commissioner for the purposes of determining what should be the correct rateable value.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Does the principle of waiver apply if the property owner files a complaint against an assessment of property tax even though he has not received a special notice?

  It was further submitted that when the property is newly constructed or the rateable value is to be increased, then issuance of a notice under Rule 15(2) is mandatory. Such a notice in writing is to be issued in addition to the public notice given under Rule 13(1). It was also submitted that the use of the word 'shall' in Rule 15(2) makes the issuance of such a notice mandatory and if the same is not given, any assessment made would be null and void.{Para 63}

64. The requirement of giving a notice under Rule 15(2) is clearly in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The Rules contemplate that once entries have been entered in the assessment book, then they can be adopted in subsequent years and that a new assessment book must be made once every four years. The advertisement, contemplated by Rule 13, is only to the effect that the assessment book is ready and that it can be inspected at a place to be notified therein. In case of a property newly constructed or where the rateable value is to be enhanced, such public, notice under Rule 13 would give no indication regarding the entries made. The requirement of Rule 15(2) of giving a special notice if only to make the person concerned aware of the fact that the premises are going to be entered in the assessment book for the first time or the rateable value is liable to be changed.

65. What will be the effect, if a special notice, as contemplated by Rule 15(2), is not issued?

66. Reading of Rule 15(2) shows that giving of special notice is mandatory. The use of the word 'shall' in Rule 15(2) clearly indicates that there is an obligation which is cast on the authorities concerned to issue a notice in writing notwithstanding the fact that a general notice may have been published under Rule 13. A notice under Rule 13, published in the newspaper, would not indicate the properties, which are newly added in the assessment book or the changes with regard to the rateable value, which have been made. The public notice under Rule 13 would merely state that the entries in the assessment book have been completed and the same is open for inspection. In the case of new properties, where rateable value has been increased, special notice must be given under Rule 15(2). As we have already observed, the requirement of giving a special notice under Rule 15(2) incorporates one of the cardinal principles of natural justice. The owner is required to be put to notice as to what action is contemplated by the Corporation with regard to the fixation of rateable value. If no such notice is given, then the result, which must normally, follow is that the said assessment will have to be quashed. The Small Cause Court, once it is satisfied that a special notice, as required under Rule 15(2), has not been given, would, normally, set aside the assessment. We are saying 'normally' because, one situation may arise, in which case, even if notice under Rule 15(2) has not been given, the Small Cause Court ought not to set aside the assessment. Such a situation will arise where notice under Rule 15(2) is waived. The principle of waiver, in such cases, is that if certain requirements or conditions are provided by a statute, in the interest of a particular person, then the requirements, or conditions, even if mandatory, may be waived by that person, if no public interest is involved, and in such a case, the act done will be valid even if the requirement or condition has not been performed.

67. Where, therefore, an assessee chooses to file a complaint against the proposal to fix or increase the reteable value, even without the issuancc of a valid special notice under Rule 15(2), the principle of waiver would apply. The requirement of issuing a notice under Rule 15(2) is to give an opportunity, of filing a complaint, to the assessee. If a complaint is filed then the purpose for which the notice was to be issued, is fulfilled. In such a case, even if no notice is issued or the notice, which is issued, suffers from any defect, the principle of waiver would apply and an assessee, in appeal before the Small Cause Court, or even thereafter, cannot be allowed to contend that non-compliance with the provi-sions of Rule 15(2) must result in the assessment being regarded as a nullity. In those appeals, therefore, where complaints were filed under Rule 16 and the same were disposed of under Rule 18, a contention that no notice under Rule 15(2) was not served cannot be raised.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Whether Municipal Corporation should give a special notice to both owner and occupier of property for assessment of property tax?

It was then submitted that special notice under Rule 15(2) must be issued to the owner, as well as to the occupier. In support of this submission, it was urged that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 stated that the Commissioner shall give a special written notice "to the owner or occupier of the said premises".{Para 57}

58. It is, no doubt, true that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 does contemplate a situation, where special notice may be given to the owner or occupier. In other words, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 does not contemplate special written notice to be given only to the owner. If that is so, then under what circumstances is a special written notice required to be given to an occupier?

59. The Scheme of the Act and the Rules clearly is that liability for payment of property tax is on the person primarily liable. This is clearly provided by Section 139, read with Rule 8. In order to find out who is the person primarily liable, information may be sought from the owner or occupier. The person primarily liable under S. 139(1)(b) is the lessor or the superior lessor. This liability, however, shifts to the occupier at the stage of assessment, and before the raising of the bill only when the provisions of Rule 12(2) are attracted. If true information with regard to the name of the person, who is primarily liable, is not given by the person in occupation of the premises, then Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 makes the occupier himself to be liable for all property taxes leviable. Rule 15(2), which follows Rule 12, when it refers to special notice being given to the occupier, can have reference to a case, where Rule 12(2) is applicable and the name of the person primarily liable is not known. Special notice under Section 15(2) will also have to be given to a tenant where he, under Section 139(2) of the BPMC Act, and not the owner, is liable to pay the tax by virtue of his being the tenant of the land on which premises are constructed by him. There is no third situation where a special notice has to be given to tenant.

60. The Rules cannot travel beyond the scope of the Act. The liability to pay property tax, according to Section 139(1) in case of tenanted premises, is on the lessor. It is the name of the person, who is primarily liable, which is to be entered in the assessment book, as provided by Rule 9(c). The Act, in contradistinction to the Rules, contemplates realisation of property tax from the tenant under Section 140(1) in a case only after bill has been submitted to the lessor and the same remains unpaid. The stage of Rule 15(2) is prior in point of time to the raising of the bill. Under the Act, the liability to pay property tax is fastened on the occupier or the tenant only under the provisions of Section 140. The demand for property tax can be made only after the assessment book has been finalised and a bill raised. The assessment book is finalised only when provisions of the Rules, including Rule 15, have been complied with and complaints received and determined under Rule 18. Therefore, interpreting Rule 15(2), in the light of the provisions of the Act, the inference can only be that the Rule's require only one assessment to be made on the person, who is primarily liable and not on any one else. Notice under Rule 15(2) to an occupier, and not to an owner, is, therefore, contemplated only when the occupier does not inform about the name of the owner, thereby attracting the provisions of Rule 12(2), which, by a fiction, makes him the person liable till the requisite information is obtained or where provisions of Section 139(2) are applicable.

61. It was also submitted that special notice under Rule 15(2) must be given both to the owner and occupier. It was contended that even if the liability to pay the tax is of the owner, by virtue of Section 139 of the Act, nevertheless, in the event of the rent having been fixed as being inclusive of taxes, then, if special notice is served on the occupier-

tenant, the landlord, for no fault of his, would be punished and penalised if the tenant does not inform the owner about the service of such a notice or he himself does not take any action in pursuance of such notice. Therefore, it is just and expedient to read the conjunction 'or' of Rule 15(2) as 'and'. We see no substance in this submission. The Act provides that the person primarily liable is the lessor, vide Section 139. Provisions of Rule 15(2) come into play during the course of assessment. The assessment is to be made in respect of the premises and, obviously, the person concerned would be, the owner. In this back ground, when duty is cast to serve a notice under Rule 15(2), on owner or occupier, the implication clearly is that, normally, special notice will be issued to the owner. It is only where the provisions of Rule 12(2) come into play and the occupier becomes liable that a notice under Rule 15(2) would be required to be issued to him.

62. The Act and the Rules do not contemplate two notices in respect of the same premises for a single official year being issued to two different persons. If the contention of Mr. Modi is correct, the effect would be that for a single official year, one notice will have to be issued to the occupier and another notice to the tenant. This may, then, result in conflicting situations arising. Supposing the owner does not file any objections and accepts the proposed assessment, can the tenant file a complaint and oppose the same. The reverse situation would be where the tenant accepts the proposed rateable value, but the owner objects. In each of such cases, a very anomalous situation will result when no objections are filed pursuant to one notice, which is issued under Rule 15(2) and the assessment would become final, but in respect of the same premises, if the other person, viz., either the owner or the tenant, files complaints, then the proposed assessment would not be final. The conjunction 'or' in Rule 15(2) can, under no circumstances, in our opinion, be regarded as 'and'.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page