Allahabad High Court
Mawana Sugars Ltd vs Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana And ... on 12 December, 2014
Bench: Tarun Agarwala, Satish Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No.39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No.745 of 2014
Mawana Sugars Limited
Vs.
Nagar Palika Parishad Mawana and another
Connected with-
Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No.2222 of 2009
Mawana Sugars Limited
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
*****
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard Sri S.D.Singh, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Rajendra, the learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad.
The dispute between the petitioner and the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana with regard to imposition of house tax, water tax and assessment of the annual value has been going on for the past four decades. The petitioner is resisting the jurisdiction of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana in imposing the taxes upon them. The earlier round of litigation went upto the Supreme Court where they lost the battle and the Parishad became empowered to impose taxes. Based on the decision of the Supreme Court the assessment of house tax, water tax amounting to Rs.5,32,000/- per annum for the period 1987 to 2005 was charged. This assessment order has been challenged by the petitioner in an appeal filed under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), which is pending consideration before the Civil Court.
For the assessment year 2007-2012 the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana issued notices to the petitioner proposing to revise the annual value and accordingly, enhanced the water tax and house tax. The petitioner filed its objection under Section 143 of the Act. Without considering its objection a demand notice was issued to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner made a request for supplying the assessment orders, which they failed to receive, but, got certain information under the Right to Information Act. Armed with such information, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2222 of 2009 in which an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8 lacs per annum towards taxes during the pendency of the writ petition. Pending this writ petition, fresh notices have been issued for the assessment year 2013-18 whereby the Nagar Palika Parishad proposed to enhance the tax to Rs.25,02,470/- per annum. The petitioner filed its objection and, without disposing of its objection, a demand notice has been issued directing the petitioner to pay the said amount. It is alleged that the assessment order has not been furnished and consequently, the present writ petition No.749 of 2014 has been filed. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and are being decided on the basis of the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition.
We are of the opinion that no counter affidavit is required in this writ petition No.749 of 2014 since no disputed questions of fact are involved for disposal of both the writ petitions.
From a perusal of the information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner contends that the information so supplied is not an assessment order under Section 143 of the Act nor does it disposes the objection. We have perused the said order and we do not find it to be an assessment order disposing of the objection of the petitioner and accepting the proposal of the Committee. The said order is no assessment order in the eyes of law and consequently, the demand cannot be sustained.
Section 143 of the Act indicates that the Municipality or the Parishad shall give a public notice and proceed to consider the valuation and after due investigation, dispose of the objection relating to valuation and assessment and cause the result thereof to be noted in a book kept by the Parishad/ Municipality. From a perusal of the provision under Section 143 of the Act it is apparently clear that where the objection are invited in writing, it is implicit that the Municipality or the Parishad, as the case may be, passes an order in writing dealing with such objection which would be in consonance with the principles of natural justice as embodied under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The proforma of the assessment order indicates that the objection of the petitioner is required to be recorded and the decision of the official or the Committee is required to be indicated, which in the instant case has been left blank.
Sri Ajai Rajendra, the learned counsel appearing for the Parisahd contends that against the assessment order passed under Section 143 of the Act, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 160 of the said Act and, therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy. There is no quarrel with this proposition. An appeal can only be filed against an assessment order and in the instant case, we find, that there is no assessment order in the eyes of law passed under Section 143 of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion, that the petitioner cannot be relegated to the remedy of availing an appeal under Section 160 of the Act in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Since there is no valid assessment order in the eyes of law and the information given to the petitioner, as annexed in Annexure 11 to the writ petition, purporting to be the assessment orders, we allow the writ petition No.2222 of 2009 and quash all these alleged assessment orders.
We direct the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana to issue a fresh notice fixing a date intimating the petitioner to appear before them for disposal of its objection. Upon hearing the petitioners, the competent authority will decide the objections and make an assessment order under Section 143 of the Act within six weeks thereafter. Based on such assessment order, the petitioner will take recourse to its remedy as advised to them. During this period, the interim order passed by this Court directing the petitioner to pay Rs.8 lacs will continue to operate.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, Writ Petition No.745 of 2014, which is based on identical facts is, accordingly, allowed. The alleged assessment orders, for the period 2014 to 2018, are quashed. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana will proceed in the same fashion as stated aforesaid. For this period, the petitioner will deposit a tentative amount of Rs.10 lacs per annum, which would be subject to fresh assessment orders.
Dated:- 12.12.2014
AKJ
(Dr. Satish Chandra,J.) (Tarun Agarwala,J.)
