Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 333 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2025

                                                                1




Digitally signed by
AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY
KUMAR DWIVEDI,
ou=HIGH COURT
OF
CHHATTISGARH,
o=HIGH COURT OF
                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CHHATTISGARH,
st=CHATTISGARH,
c=IN


                                                      WPT No. 61 of 2025

                      Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd Through Its Deputy Manager (Legal) Shri Prateek
                      Hatwalne S/o Shri Udayan Hatwalne Aged About 27 Years, R/o Balco Nagar, Korba,
                      Chhattisgarh
                                                                                           ... Petitioner(s)


                                                             versus


                      1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary Department Of Urban
                      Administration And Development, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
                      Raipur (C.G.)


                      2 - Municipal Corporation, Korba, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
                      Korba, District- Korba C.G.


                      3 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District- Korba C.G.


                      4 - The Revenue Officer, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District- Korba C.G.


                      5 - The Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District- Korba C.G.
                                                                                          ... Respondent(s)

Order Sheet

03/07/2025 Mr. Brian Da Silva, Senior Advocate with Sarabvir Singh Oberoi, Advocate appears through V.C. and Mr. Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner - Company.

Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Anup Majumdar, Counsel for respondents No.2 to 5/Municipal Corporation.

Heard on IA No.3/2025 - Application for dismissal of Writ Petition filed by respondents No.2 to 5.

1. It is apparent from the record that in the earlier round of litigation (WPT No.273/2017), the petitioner has sought quashment of resolution whereby the Municipal Corporation has decided to assess the tax on the basis of resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation to presume /treat buildings/structures with single roof, the height of which is more than 16 feet, having multiple floors and questioning the tax assessment made on such basis, also challenged the demand notice dated 05.08.2017 demanding balance of the property tax for the F.Y. 2017-18 of Rs.18,10,84,796/-. The Writ Court vide order dated 28.03.2018 observing that if the quality of construction of a building and the basis of the use can be a factor for determining the annual letting value, then the height of a building can also be considered as a factor for determining the annual letting value, dismissed the petition. Thereafter, Writ Appeal No.481/2018 has been filed by the petitioner herein which was allowed in part vide judgment

dated 13.03.2019 and demand dated 05.08.2017 of Rs.24,79,91,502/- and demand dated 05.08.2017 of Rs.2,50,68,491/- were set-aside and following was observed at Para 21 and 22:-

"21. The word "any other factor" as used in the provisions of Section 138 of the Act of 1956 is to be understood in the light of the factors which are already specifically worded and provided under the said provision. From perusal of the factor which already provided under the provision of Section 138 of the Act of 1956 for consideration in assessing the annual letting value of the building are the actual status of the building.

22. In view of the above, the height of the building, which is its status and existence can be considered as one of the other factors for assessing the annual letting value of the building, but the height of the building cannot be divided into floors on presumption after a particular height and further floors thereafter."

2. In pursuance of the order passed in the above writ appeal, a fresh demand has been prepared under Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Determination of Annual Letting Value of Buildings/Lands) Rules, 1997. Thereafter, demand notice dated 10.10.2024 has been issued to the petitioner to deposit the difference amount of property tax to the tune of Rs.32,69,77,202/- and further order/notice has also been issued on 12.02.2025 whereby again the petitioner has been

called upon to pay the aforesaid amount. The said two orders have been challenged in this petition.

3. This Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 observed that the concerned Municipal Corporation after considering the reply of the petitioner received on 17.10.2024, passed the order dated 12.02.2025. On the said date, liberty has also been extended in favour of the petitioner to file self assessment before the Municipal Corporation within 3 weeks and Municipal Corporation was expected to consider the same.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the Municipal Corporation has passed the order dated 06.06.2025 by which self assessment of the petitioner has been rejected, copy of which is filed with the instant application for dismissal of the writ petition by respondents No.2 to 5. In the said application, a preliminary objection has also been raised that as per Section 148 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 the petitioner can challenge the assessment of property tax before the concerned District Court whose decision shall be final.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5/Municipal Corporation has placed reliance in the matter of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority and Ors [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 95] and referred to Para 8 of the judgment which is reproduced hereunder:-

8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2

SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India vs. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.

6. Countering the aforesaid submission and application for dismissal of the writ petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Authorities have not passed any specific order in terms of Section 148 of the Act 1956 and Section 149 (4) clearly says that no appeal shall be admitted unless an objection has been preferred under Section 148, therefore, the said submission is not acceptable. He further submits that even no resolution has been passed by Municipal Corporation for tax assessment. He has drawn

attention of this Court towards resolution which has been passed for the Financial Year 2025-26 wherein Resolution 110 dated 25.02.2019 is mentioned, according to which, valuation has been made for assessment of the tax. However, there is no resolution prior to F.Y. 2025-26 and after 25.02.2019. In such circumstances, no taxation can be levied without fresh resolution as the earlier resolution was passed on the basis of per square feet built up area, however, criteria of Financial Year 2025-26 has been changed as per Clause 5 of the said resolution for industrial establishments on the basis of cost factor. So if any criteria is changed, the same will be prospective and not retrospective. Learned senior counsel would also submit that even in case where alternative remedy is available there is no complete bar when Authorities have acted beyond their jurisdiction. In view of such submission, learned counsel prays to reject the preliminary objection/application for dismissal of writ petition and prays for grant of interim protection.

7. Having heard learned learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the petition, at this stage, the serious question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Municipal Corporation without any fresh resolution levied taxation retrospectively and whether the tax assessed is beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Authorities. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow the application for dismissal of the petition and such IA No.3 is hereby rejected.

The Petition being arguable is admitted for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted 2 weeks' time to file reply to application for amendment of the petition (IA No.4/2025).

List this case after 3 weeks.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to deposit the admitted claims/dues before the concerned Authority.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing in connection with impugned demand orders which are under challenge in this petition.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Ajay