(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) The present appeal arises from the judgement and order passed by the learned Small Causes Judge dated 15.6.1988 in MVA No.7316 of 1987, whereby for the assessment year 1986-87 and 1987-88, GRV was fixed at Rs.18,936/-.
The short facts are that for various parcels of premises bearing M.C. Nos.4767, 4767/1, 4767/2, 4767/3, 4767/4 and Survey No.282 + 283 + 284 paiki and 282 + 283 + 284 paiki, in all seven portions of premises, various assessments were made by the Corporation. The same are as under:-
Sr.
M.C.
Nos.
GRV Amount (Rs.) 1 4767 23,820/-
4767/4 2,03,660/-
4767/1 50,904/-
4767/2 42,420/-
4767/3 15,695/-
Survey No.282+283+284 paiki 4,800/-
Survey No.282+283+284 paiki 18,000/-
As the respondents were aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment, they preferred appeal being MVA No.7316/1987 before the Court of the learned Small cause Judge. The pertinent aspect is that MVA No.7316/1987 was for challenging the assessment relating to the assessment year 1986-87 and 1987-88 of the premises in question. However, as the said assessment was further continued for the assessment year 1988-89 another appeal was preferred by the respondent being MVA No.18444/1988. The appeal being MVA No.18444/1988 though was relating to the subsequent assessment year 1988-89, was heard earlier and the decision was rendered on 27.10.1993, whereby the GRV of total seven parcels of the premises was fixed at Rs.18,936/- and the assessment made by the Corporation was set aside. When the present appeal being MVA No.7316/1987 was heard, the learned Judge found that since for the subsequent assessment year GRV was already fixed of Rs.18936/- as per the decision of the Court in MVA No.18444/1988, the assessment year in question, which were of the previous year, in absence of any evidence for alteration or addition or change in the premises, the same GRV deserves to be fixed and, therefore, accordingly at the conclusion of the appeal by impugned judgement, the above referred order came to be passed. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
We have heard Mr.Raval, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the respondent. We have considered the record and proceedings and we have also considered the reasons recorded by the learned Judge.
It is not the case of the appellant that earlier decision of the learned Small Causes Court in MVA No.18444 of 1988 for the very premises in question for the assessment year of 1988-89 for fixation of GRV at Rs.18,936/- was modified by any higher forum known to law. Therefore, if for the subsequent year of 1988-89, GRV stood fixed at Rs.18,936/- and the Court has relied upon the said factor in absence of any evidence for the change in the premises by way of addition or alteration for the previous assessment year of 1986-87 and 1987-88 such an approach on the part of the Court could not be said as erroneous. Had it been a case where the assessment year was for a subsequent period, which was required to be considered by the Court for fixation of GRV it might stand on a different footing, but even in such circumstances also, it may be required for the Corporation to show additional material available with it for increase in GRV. In the present case, the appeal before the Small Causes Court was for not subsequent year, but was for the previous year. The learned Judge, therefore, has relied upon the assessment made for the subsequent year and has fixed the GRV for the previous year i.e. 1986-87 and 1987-88. We do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Court. Consequently, the appeal is meritless. Hence, deserves to be dismissed.
It was submitted by Mr.Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that pending the appeal as per the order dated 20.4.1999 passed by this Court in Civil Application No.9167 of 1998 in First Appeal No.397 of 1998, the interim stay was granted on condition to deposit Rs.1,78,000/- by the opponent with the Corporation and it is his submission that the amount was deposited for the same year and also for the subsequent year. Therefore, when this Court has dismissed the appeal, the Corporation may be directed to refund the amount deposited pending the appeal and also for the subsequent year.
As such the scope of the present appeal is for the assessment year of 1986-87 and 1987-88 and, therefore, if any amount has been deposited towards the aforesaid assessment year pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, naturally the effect shall be required to be given by the Corporation to the present judgement and consequently the refund will be required to be made by the Corporation of the surplus amount, which we direct to be refunded within a period of two months from today. However, if any amount is deposited by the respondent for the assessment year other than 1986-87 and 1987-88, the same would be outside the scope of the appeal and it will be for the respondent to resort to appropriate remedy for giving effect for the subsequent year or for ventilating the grievance, if any, in accordance with law.
It was also submitted by Mr.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the respondent that the Corporation should be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,78,000/-, which relates to the assessment year in question with the interest at the same rate which the Corporation is charging from the tax-payers if the amount had remained unpaid. We find that in normal circumstances, such principle may apply, but the same being larger aspect, we need not express any final view. But the fact remains that the Corporation has enjoyed the money for the period through out, which would be, in any case, more than 10 years. Therefore, the Corporation should refund the amount with reasonable rate of interest by way of compensatory measure as the amount came to be deposited pursuant to the interim order passed in the present appeal. As the appeal has been dismissed and consequently the respondent has become entitled to get the refund of the amount, it appears to us that it would be appropriate to direct refund with reasonable interest, which, in our view, would be 8% per annum from the date on which it is deposited until the amount is actually refunded to the respondent by the Corporation. Such refund also shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of the order as directed earlier.
Hence, subject to the aforesaid direction, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (C. L. Soni, J.) vinod Top