On a reading of the afore-quoted provisions, it is clear that
while vesting the power in the Committee to amend an
assessment list, the Legislature has taken care to specify
the circumstances in and the grounds on which such amendment
may be made; it has also laid down the manner in which such
amendment or revision of the assessment list is to be made.
Care has also been taken to comply with the principle of
natural justice by making the provision for giving notice to
the person who is likely to be affected by the proposed
amendment giving him not less than a month’s time to tender
objection, if any, to the Committee and allowing him an
opportunity of being heard in support of the objections
raised. Notice to the affected person mandated in the
section is not an empty formality; it is meant for a
purpose. A vague and unspecific notice will not provide
reasonable opportunity to the noticee to file objection
meeting the reasons/grounds on which the amendment of the
assessment list is proposed to be made. Such a notice
cannot be taken to be complying with the statutory
requirement. On perusal of the notice issued to the
Corporation, which is on record, it is evident that the
notice is vague and lacks particulars. It neither states
the reason for/or the ground on which the amendment is
proposed to be made nor does it indicate any material on the
basis of which the revision as stated in the notice is
proposed to be made. It is stated in the notice: "Whereas
your above-mentioned property has wrongly been left out from
the assessment list, whereas it should have/should have been
in the same. Whereas the assessment of this property of
yours was assessed less due to inadvertent mistake/fraud or
intention, which needs amendment thereby".
It is apparent that the Committee is not sure on which
ground it proposes to proceed for amending the assessment
list. Such a notice not only does not comply with the
statutory requirements, it also defeats the very purpose of
the statutory provisions. Coming to the question of
increase of the capacity of the godown in question and the
rate of rent, neither the discussions in the orders under
challenge indicate any basis for increasing the capacity of
the godown from 1,84,000 to 2,06,656 bags, nor has our
attention been drawn to any primary material in support of
the order. In the circumstances the contentions raised by
the learned counsel for Corporation that notice is vague and
it has been issued without due application of mind and the
grounds stated in the order are based on no material, have
to be accepted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7423 1996
PETITIONER:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/12/2000
BENCH:
D.P.Mohapatro, Y.K.Sabharwal
Citation:(2001) 1 SCC 291
The legality and validity of the order amending the
assessment list in respect of its property by the Municipal
Committee, Sangrur in the State of Punjab is under challenge
in this appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India
(hereinafter referred to as ’the Corporation’).
The assessment in question relates to a godown
described in the notice as "property unit No.239-Block No.1
situated within the local limits of the Municipality". By
notice No.110/HP dated 27.6.1991 issued under section 67 of
the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 ( for short ’the Act’) the
Municipal Committee intimated the Corporation that it
intends to amend/revise the assessment in respect of its
property and if the Corporation has any objection it may
file the ‘same along with documentary proof in support,
within a month. The relevant portion of the notice is
extracted here-under:
"To The Distt. Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Jakhal Road, Sunam. Property Unit no.239 Block No.1 Which
is situated in the Municipal limits Sunam, in connection
with which you are hereby informed vide this notice that the
amendment in the assessment of your this property is liable
to be done necessarily due to the following reasons and is
done as under:-
Whereas your above mentioned property has wrongly been
left out from the assessment list whereas it should
be/should have been in the same.
2. Whereas the assessment of this property of yours
was assessed less due to inadvertent mistake/fraud or
intention, which needs amendment thereby.
Therefore, vide this notice you are hereby informed
that your above mentioned property i.e. house/shop/plot
alongwith office, godowns and quarters, the assessment of
the same is being amended due to the aforementioned reasons
w.e.f. the year 1986-87 as per details mentioned hereunder
and the new assessment is fixed as below. Any objection in
this behalf may be given in writing alongwith the
documentary proofs in support of the same within one month
from today.
Property House/ Name of the Name of Annual Tax Unit
No. Ward Owner of tenant assessed asse- No. the if any
rent ssed property after 15% deducting 10 % Note:- The
differential 1. Godown of house tax in food grains, respect
of capacity the years will 206656 bags be recovered @ 20
paise 493972.00 69373/15 from you after per bag per paise/
allowing the month. P.A. tax paid. 2.Pedestals outside
for 28790 bags @ 08 paise per bag per month 2303.00
3.Quarters of class IV employees attached 3600.00 4.Weigh
Bridge 4000.00 5. Office two sets 8000.00 - - - - - - - -
313875.00
4% Maintenance 51387.50 - - - - - - -@@
II
462487.50 - - - - - - -
Earlier given notice No.PMA under Section 67 and
No.654/HT dated 2.1.91 is hereby recalled and this new
notice is issued accordingly.
Sd/- Executive Officer, Municipal Committee Sunam"
In reply to the notice the Corporation denied that any
additional tax liability should be imposed on it in respect
of the property since the godown in question has already
been assessed to property tax; that no addition/alteration
has been made in the building/godown after finalisation of
the last assessment, therefore, no revision of the tax is
required to be made. The Corporation also questioned the
validity of the revision of tax with retrospective effect
from 1986-87. The Corporation also denied the statement in
the notice that the capacity of its godown is 2,06,656 bags
and not 1,84,000 bags on the basis of which the previous
assessment was finalised. The Corporation drew the
attention of the Municipal Committee that the notice
containing a similar proposal for revising the property tax
in respect of the same property on same grounds had been
issued previously and on receipt of the objection of the
Corporation the said notice was withdrawn. The assessing
officer, by order dated 5.12.1991, amended the assessment
list enhancing the property tax of the godown to
Rs.4,62,487.50, rejecting the objections raised on behalf of
the Corporation. He held, inter alia, that the previous
assessment list was prepared under the mistaken impression
that capacity of the godown in question was 1,84,000 bags in
place of 2,06,656 bags. Since the Corporation failed to
produce any material in support of its stand that there was
no error in the previous assessment and such assessment was
made on the correct factual position regarding capacity of
the godown the objection raised by it was liable to be
rejected. Regarding the withdrawal of the previous notice,
the assessing officer stated that the said notice was issued
proposing a revision of the tax on the ground that the
building/godown had undergone a change which, on
verification, was found to be incorrect; therefore the said
notice was withdrawn. Regarding the rate of rent per bag
the assessment officer held that the tax is to be assessed
on the basis of rent @ 20 paise per bag per month which, in
his view, was the rate at which godowns were being let out
in the town. On these findings the assessment list was
amended/ revised fixing Rs.4,62,487.50 and the order was
given effect from the year 1986-87. In the appeal filed by
the Corporation the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur
by order dated 22.7.92 confirmed the order of the assessment
with the modification that the amended assessment list will
be given effect from 1.4.92 in place of the year 1986-87.
From the orders it appears that the appellate authority,
rejecting the objection raised by the Corporation against
the rate of 20 paise per bag per month fixed by the
assessing officer, gave the reason: "because in principle
it has been stated by the Corporation/Warehousing
corporation in a number of cases that they have no objection
if the assessment of godown be fixed at the rate of 20 paise
per bag per month". The petition filed by the Corporation
before the State Government under section 237 of the Act
challenging the order of the appellate authority confirming
the amended assessment list proved futile. Then the
Corporation filed a Writ Petition before the Punjab &
Haryana High Court seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the
aforementioned orders passed by the statutory authorities
which was summarily dismissed by the order dated 6.9.94.
The order reads :
"Heard. No ground to interfere has been made out.
Dismissed."
The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
Shri Y.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant contended that the notice seeking revision of
the assessment list is vague and lacks particulars. It has
been issued without application of mind to the relevant
factors. The learned counsel further contended that the
revision of tax has been made without ascertaining the
capacity of the godown which has not undergone any change in
structure or capacity since the last assessment and the per
bag rate fixed in the order is also without any basis.
According to the learned counsel the Corporation has been
paying tax assessed on the basis of rental of 16 paise per
bag per month in respect of the godown taken on hire and
there is no reason why that rate should not be accepted as
the basis for assessing the tax. Per contra Shri Ajay
Majithia, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal
Committee supported the order of amended/revised assessment.
He submitted that the Corporation proceeded to amend/revise
the tax in respect of the godown in question since the
previous assessment as such had been prepared on erroneous
basis relating to the capacity of the godown and the rate of
rent per bag. The power to amend/revise the assessment
list, according to the learned counsel, is specifically
vested in the Municipal Committee under section 67 of the
Act in exercise of which the order has been passed, and
therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the Writ
Petition. Before entering into merits of the contentions
raised it will be convenient to notice the relevant
statutory provisions. Chapter IV of the Act ( Sections 51 -
68A) contains the provisions relating to Municipal Fund and
Property. The procedure for assessing immovable property is
dealt with in sections 63 to 68A. Section 63 deals with
preparation of assessment list. Section 64 deals with
publication and completion of the assessment list. Section
65 mandates the Committee to give public notice for the time
fixed for revising the assessment list. Section 66 which
deals with settlement of lists lays down that after the
objections have been inquired into and the persons making
them have been allowed an opportunity of being heard either
in person or by authorised agents, as they may think fit,
and the revision of the valuation and assessments has been
completed, the amendments made in the list shall be
authenticated by the signatures of at least two members of
the committee, who shall at the same time certify that no
valid objection has been made to the evaluation and
assessment contained in the list, except in the cases in
which amendments have been entered therein and subject to
such amendments as may thereafter be duly made, and that the
tax so assessed shall be deemed to be the tax for the year
commencing on the first day of April of the year in which
notice was issued under section 64 or section 65 of the Act.
In sub-section(2) of section 66 it is provided that the list
when amended under this section shall be deposited in the
committee’s office and shall there be open during office
hours to all owners or occupiers of property comprised
therein or the authorised agents of such persons and a
public notice that it is so open shall forthwith be
published. In Section 67 provision is made for further
amendments of an assessment list. Since the proceeding
under challenge was initiated under that section, it is
quoted in extenso: "67. Further amendments of Assessment
list (1) The committee may at any time amend the list by
inserting the name of any person whose name ought to have
been or ought to be inserted, or by inserting any property
which ought to have been or ought to be inserted, or by
altering the assessment on any property which has been
erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or
mistake, whether on the part of the committee or of the
assessee, or in the case of tax payable by the occupier by a
change in the tenancy, after giving notice to any person
affected by the amendment, of a time, not less than one
month from the date of service at which the amendment is to
be made.
(2) Any person interested in any such amendment may
tender his objection to the Committee in writing before the
time, fixed in the notice or orally or in writing at that
time, and shall be allowed an opportunity of being heard in
support of the same in person or by authorized agent, as he
may think fit.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
the Committee may with a view to give effect to the annual
value as modified by the Punjab Municipal (Amendment) Act
11, 1994 amend the assessment list of the year commencing on
the first day of April of the relevant year for increasing
or reducing annual value of any property and of the
assessment thereupon after giving notice at any time to any
person affected by the amendment of a period not less than
one month from the date of service at which the amendment is
to be made and the Committee shall consider any objection
made in this regard by any such person and the amended
assessment list shall come into force with effect from the
first day of April of the year in which notice was given to
the person affected."
Section 68-A vests further power in the Committee to
amend assessment list on grounds of fraud, accident or
mistake on the part of the Committee or of the assessee.
On
a reading of the afore-quoted provisions, it is clear that
while vesting the power in the Committee to amend an
assessment list, the Legislature has taken care to specify
the circumstances in and the grounds on which such amendment
may be made; it has also laid down the manner in which such
amendment or revision of the assessment list is to be made.
Care has also been taken to comply with the principle of
natural justice by making the provision for giving notice to
the person who is likely to be affected by the proposed
amendment giving him not less than a month’s time to tender
objection, if any, to the Committee and allowing him an
opportunity of being heard in support of the objections
raised. Notice to the affected person mandated in the
section is not an empty formality; it is meant for a
purpose. A vague and unspecific notice will not provide
reasonable opportunity to the noticee to file objection
meeting the reasons/grounds on which the amendment of the
assessment list is proposed to be made. Such a notice
cannot be taken to be complying with the statutory
requirement. On perusal of the notice issued to the
Corporation, which is on record, it is evident that the
notice is vague and lacks particulars. It neither states
the reason for/or the ground on which the amendment is
proposed to be made nor does it indicate any material on the
basis of which the revision as stated in the notice is
proposed to be made. It is stated in the notice: "Whereas
your above-mentioned property has wrongly been left out from
the assessment list, whereas it should have/should have been
in the same. Whereas the assessment of this property of
yours was assessed less due to inadvertent mistake/fraud or
intention, which needs amendment thereby".
It is apparent that the Committee is not sure on which
ground it proposes to proceed for amending the assessment
list. Such a notice not only does not comply with the
statutory requirements, it also defeats the very purpose of
the statutory provisions. Coming to the question of
increase of the capacity of the godown in question and the
rate of rent, neither the discussions in the orders under
challenge indicate any basis for increasing the capacity of
the godown from 1,84,000 to 2,06,656 bags, nor has our
attention been drawn to any primary material in support of
the order. In the circumstances the contentions raised by
the learned counsel for Corporation that notice is vague and
it has been issued without due application of mind and the
grounds stated in the order are based on no material, have
to be accepted. From the discussions in the foregoing
paragraphs it is clear that the order passed by the
assessing officer and confirmed by the appellate authority
and the State Government are clearly unsustainable. The
High Court was in error in dismissing the writ petition
summarily by passing an unreasoned order as has been done in
this case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs.
The order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ
petition is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the
orders passed by the assessing authority, the appellate
authority and the State Government are quashed.
No comments:
Post a Comment