Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 645 of 2017 Petitioner :- Cantonment Board Meerut & Another Respondent :- Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Petitioner :- Udit Chandra
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nipun Singh for the respondent.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Cantonment Board against the order dated 25.02.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.2, Meerut in Tax Appeal No. 07 of 2010 (Pankaj Agarwal Vs. Cantonment Board, Meerut and Another).
3. Undisputedly, a cryptic order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonnment Board to revise the assessment list. The order appears to have been passed by way of a rubber stamp order under signatures of the Chief Executive Officer, for the period 2008-2011. It reads as below:
"Heard Sh./Smt. Pankaj on ............. Enquired into the Objections.
ARV fixed at Rs.142218"
4. Only the words Pankaj and the figure 142218 have been written by hand. Similar orders appear to have been passed in all cases as is apparent from the copy of the assessment list annexed to the writ petition.
5. Thus the ARV had been revised from Rs. 2200/- to Rs. 142218/- by that order. The respondent filed an appeal under Section 93 of The Cantonments Act, 2006 before the District Judge, Meerut. While learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to justify the assessment order as it was not a speaking order, however, he submits the learned court below has erred in proceeding to set aside, the assessment order in entirety, inasmuch as, there was no defect in the notice issued by the petitioner for causing the revision of the assessment list. In this regard reliance has been placed on Section 76 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of the Act.
6. On the other hand Sri Nipun Singh submits that the assessment order being patently illegal as is established from the face of record, the learned Court below has not erred in setting aside the assessment order in entirety. It has also been submitted that in any case, it was open to the petitioner to seek revision of the assessment for the subsequent years in accordance with law.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record while no defect may be found in the reasoning of the learned court below that the assessment order was fully invalid, inasmuch as, it is difficult to describe the above noted noting as an order, inasmuch as, only a rubber stamp had been literally affixed on the objection register, that too by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board wherein he has chosen to fill up only the name of the resident and the amount of the revised ARV.
8. Practice adopted by the Chief Executive Officer Board to pass order of revision of assessment list by affixing rubber stamp containing detail of revision made cannot be accepted or allowed to stand. The learned court below has rightly set aside such an order. However, it is further held that such a practice should be completely disbanded and should not be adopted in any future or other case. For the purpose of making an assessment or revision, the entire procedure is prescribed under the Act. It requires issuance of prior notice; filing of objections; recording of the objections; enquiry and investigation into the objections and; opportunity of hearing before any adverse order may be passed.
9. Keeping in mind the purpose of which objection are invited being for determination of annual rental value, once such objection are filed, the order that may be passed thereon must offer reasons for rejecting the substantial objections as may have been raised by the objector.
10. It is specially so since to protect the interest of the Cantonment Board, in the event of an appeal being filed against the assessment order, the property owner is saddled with the liability to first pay of the disputed amount and to further continue to pay that amount during the pendency of the appeal. If such arbitrary and unreasoned orders involving multi-fold increase of the ARV continue to exist, they would render a remedy of appeal wholly onerous and in some cases even illusionary.
11. Then, as to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proper course for the appellate authority would have been to set aside the assessment and remand the same for a fresh assessement. the said objection does carry weight, inasmuch as perusal of the order does not indicate that the appellate authority itself chose to undertake any exercise that was required before rate list or assessment could have been revised. Though it was open to the appellate authority to itself entertain the objections and make enquiry into the same and then pass an order, it appears the Appellate Authority has summarily annulled the assessment without consideration of the precise objection except to the effect that the revision made proposed was mani-fold. While that factor may be relevant, however, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not have been the sole relevant factor.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order insofar as it annuls the assessment is set aside and the matter remitted to the Chief Executive Officer to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. In this regard, the respondent shall have one opportunity to file a fresh detailed objection to the proposed assessment within a period of three weeks' from today.
13. Upon such objection being filed the Chief Executive Officer may proceed to pass a fresh order upon due compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 76 of the Act. Any amount that may have been deposited by the respondent shall abide by the final assessment to be made.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 S.Chaurasia