Hon. Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
(Per: Tarun Agarwala,J.) The petitioners are the owners of house nos. 29, B, C and D, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad, in which a Nursing Home has been constructed, which is popularly known as Priti Hospital. House tax @ Rs. 4,500/-, 3,000/- and 4,200/- respectively was being paid. By an order dated 26.11.1999, the house tax was enhanced to Rs.9,95,385/-. Thus, it was increased by 900%. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Judge Small Causes Court, which was allowed by an order dated 23.05.2002. The Judge Small Causes Court reduced the rate of tax to Rs.3,15,000/- and determined the annual value at Rs. 45/- lacs. The Nagar Nigam, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed an appeal, which is pending consideration.
Based on the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court, the petitioners have deposited the tax including arrears and are paying the house tax at the rate fixed by the Judge Small Causes Court for the subsequent years, which has been duly accepted by the Nagar Nigam.
The petitioners have received a notice dated 06.02.2006 under Section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) indicating that it is proposed to assess the annual value of the property at Rs. 88,35,606/- and property tax at Rs. 6,18,500/- with effect from 01.04.2003 and intimated the petitioners through the said notice that if they have any objection to the said valuation, reply/objection may be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said notice, have filed the present writ petition on various grounds.
We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Ajit Kumar Singh for the respondents.
The only ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that the notice purporting to revise the annual value and the property tax cannot be done retrospectively and that the determination of the annual value and the property tax could only be done prospectively. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners have a remedy of filing an objection before the authority under Section 209 of the Adhiniyam and if such an objection is filed, the authority would consider and decide the matter and therefore, the Court should not interfere in the matter and should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was entertained in the year 2006 and since affidavits have been exchanged, we do not find any justification to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of alternative remedy at this stage.
The annual value is defined under Section 174 of the Adhiniyam. The assessment list has to be prepared under Section 207 of the Adhiniyam in accordance with the manner prescribed in the Rules. Section 208 of the Adhiniyam provides that the Municipal Commissioner shall publish the list under Section 207 of the Adhiniyam in accordance with the manner prescribed in the Rules. Section 209 of the Adhiniyam provides that the Municipal Commissioner or an Officer authorised by him on his behalf shall dispose of the objection in accordance with the provisions prescribed in the Rules. Section 211 of the Adhiniyam provides that a new assessment list shall ordinarily be prepared once in every two years. Sub-clause (2) of Section 211 of the Adhiniyam provides that the assessment list shall remain operative till such time a new list is prepared.
The Municipal Commissioner under the Adhiniyam, consequently, has to provide a comprehensive property tax structure and is obliged to fix the annual value and the rate of tax every two years. Section 211 of the Adhiniyam clearly provides that the assessment list so prepared would continue to operate till it is superseded by an assessment list.
We repeatedly asked the learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam to show us any provision by which property tax and annual value could be determined with retrospective effect. The learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam failed to show any provision under the Adhiniyam. We find that in view of the provision of Section 211 of the Adhiniyam, determination of the annual value and rate of tax can only be done prospectively and cannot be done retrospectively. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 06.02.2006 indicating an intention to determine the annual value with effect from 01.04.2003 i.e. with retrospective effect, can not be sustained and the notice to that extent is liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, hold that the Nagar Nigam cannot determine the annual value or the property tax with retrospective effect.
We, accordingly, allow the writ petition in part and dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioners to file an appropriate objection to the notice dated 06.02.2006 under Section 209 of the Adhiniyam within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order with regard to the proposed annual value or the proposed property tax. If such an objection is raised, the authority will consider and decide the same within six weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the authority will not determine the annual value and/or the property tax with retrospective effect.
Dated: 09.09.2014 MAA/-