(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. Present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 23.4.2007 passed by the Small Cause Court in MVA No.159 of 2006 whereby the Court has quashed the bill and has directed to issue fresh bill to the appellant treating the premises as non-commercial premises for the purpose assessment of tax.
2. Relevant facts are that the premises located in Ward Law Garden bearing Survey No.436 bearing Tenement No.0513-09-0126- 0001-Q was assessed by the officers of the Corporation for the year 2006-07 (by typographical error in the judgment, it appears to have been tybed as 2001-2007). The respondent, being aggrieved by the said assessment preferred appeal before the learned Small Cause Court, being MVA No.159 of 2006. Learned Small Cause Judge at the conclusion of the appeal, delivered the above said judgment and order. Under the circumstances, present appeal before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant and Mr. Jigar Patel for the respondent. We have considered the record and proceedings and also we have considered the reasons recorded by the learned Judge.
4. Learned counsel appearing for both the sides concede that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the decision of this Court dated 21.12.2011 in First Appeal No.4998 of 2008, whereby it is held that if the office is located at commercial premises, the premises is to be assessed as commercial premises and in the said decision, it has been observed at para 2 to 6 as under:-
“2. This appeal under Section 411 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the instance of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and is directed against an order dated April 23, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court No.12 at Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No.256 of 2006, thereby allowing the appeal preferred under Section 406 of the Act and reducing the valuation previously assessed by the Municipal Authority.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through materials on record, we find that the point involved in this appeal is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Kapilbhai Mukundrai Bhatt, reported in 2009 (2) GLR 1210.
4. There is no dispute that the premises is situated in a commercial area and used by its owner, who is a lawyer, for his office purpose.
5. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the property is liable to be taxed as one used for commercial purpose which in this case the Corporation did and such assessment was set aside by the Small Causes Court.
6. We, therefore, relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and restore the one passed by the Municipal Corporation. The appeal is, thus, allowed.”
5. The same situation prevails in the present matter. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Court is quashed and set aside with further observation that the assessment made by the Corporation vide Bill No.2501 dated 21.6.2006 shall stand restored. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) omkar (C.L. SONI, J.)