Gujarat High Court
Shree Mahavir Metalcraft Pvt. Ltd vs Jamnagar Municipal Corporation on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 24/03/2025
Pronounced On : 08/05/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5713 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SHREE MAHAVIR METALCRAFT PVT. LTD.
Versus
JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr.H.S.Munshaw waives service of rule on behalf of
respondents.
2. Before discussing the rival submissions, certain aspects
need to be addressed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
3. Undisputedly, the captioned writ petition is part of group
of petitions (being Special Civil Application No.2692 of 2024
and other allied writ petitions), where the issue involved is
levy of property tax and its demand by issuance of bills by the
respondent- Jamnagar Municipal Corporation for the period
from 2013-14 to 2023-24. In Special Civil Application No. 2692
of 2024 and other allied writ petitions, as contended on behalf
of JMC, the levy of property tax and its demand by respondent
corporation was restricted for the years 2018-19 to 2023-24.
Accordingly, those petitions were heard and considered
restricting consideration of challenge to levy and demand of
property tax for the period from 2018-19 to 2023-24.
4. When the hearing took place in the group of matters
referred herein above, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave
appearing in Special Civil Application No.5713 of 2024 was not
available for his arguments and therefore on a request made
on his behalf, the captioned writ petition was kept for hearing
on 24.03.2025. Prior to 24.03.2025, arguments canvassed by
learned advocates appearing in other petitions were concluded.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the petitioner prior
to his submissions on merits of his matter raised following
two contentions, which this Court would like to put on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
6. Firstly, that the matters involving similar issue are filed
before Division Bench of this Court, and are pending. In that
matter also learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw appears for
respondent-corporation. Despite knowing this fact, the same
was not pointed out by learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw
before hearing of Special Civil Application No. 2692 of 2024
and other allied writ petitions.
7. To test this contention, this court perused the earlier
orders and it is noticed that earlier similar matters were placed
before Division Bench (Coram: Hon'ble Ms.Justice Sonia Gokani
and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mr.Sandeep N. Bhatt) wherein vide
order dated 05.01.2023, Notice was issued and interim relief to
the effect of no coercive actions in relation to the bill dated
28.11.2021 till the returnable date, was granted.
8. Thereafter, the matters were listed before Division Bench
comprising of (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V.Anjaria and
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Devan M. Desai) wherein the Division
Bench has passed the following order on 27.04.2023 :
"Registry is directed to verify the subject matter as also to
verify the issue, which as per the cause title falls under the
Gujarat Municipal Corporations Act read with the provisions
of Gujarat Municipal Corporation Rules in relation to levy of
property tax, in light of the prevalent roster to place
thereafter before the appropriate bench, office shall take
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
necessary steps without booking any delay.
Interim relief shall operate till the matter is listed in the next
date."
9. Thereafter, the matters were placed before the Hon'ble
Single Judge, wherein an order dated 06.09.2023 was passed,
which reads as under:
"Mr.Nishith P. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner,
urges for some time, as the issue involved in the captioned
writ petitions, is pending consideration before the Apex Court.
It is urged that the matters, may be adjourned after six
weeks'.
List the matter on 05.12.2023.
Interim relief granted earlier, to continue till then.
10. Thereafter, in the present petition, Notice was issued by
an order dated 09.04.2024 (Coram: Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati).
After 09.04.2024, the matter was listed many times, however,
no such objection was raised. It is for the first time that such
an objection was raised, that too on the day of final hearing.
In the opinion of this Court, such a contention raised by Mr.
Dave at the fag end of hearing of the group of petitions,
inspite of being in knowledge about the order of this court
dated 27.04.2023, is condemnable.
11. Secondly, during course of hearing, a query was raised
on technical aspect, which was responded by officer Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
Jignesh Nirmal Assistant Commissioner, JMC, who was present
in the court. According to him, last date reflected on a bill
generated online refers to the date of print and not the date of
preparation of bills. On such clarification made by officer of
respondent corporation, learned advocate Mr. Dave remarked
that if matters are to be conducted in this manner, the
petitioner may also be permitted to remain present and make
submissions. In the opinion of this Court, such a remark made
by Mr. Dave was not required in the first instance, specifically
when the assistance being sought for was on factual and
technical aspects of generation of bill and not the merits of the
case. Though the Court is not required to justify its action of
having sought for assistance from an employee working with
the Corporation during the course of hearing in open Court, it
is only because of such a remark made by Mr. Dave that this
Court is coerced into dealing with this contention as well.
12. On merits of the matter, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave
submitted that he is adopting the arguments canvassed by
learned advocate Mr.Nishith Acharya for the petitioners in
other petitions. In addition, Mr. Dave submitted that in this
case also prior to these bills, no bills have been served to the
petitioner and therefore the petitioner had no occasion to raise
his objection. If the Notice had been issued for each
Assessment Year, the petitioner would have raised objection
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
and since no opportunity of raising objections was provided,
bill is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
This aspect has been considered by this court in Special Civil
Application No. 18000 of 2018 and other allied matters and
therefore, the issue remain no more res-integra, the present
petition deserves to be allowed.
13. Learned advocate submitted that this Court in the
decision dated 15.07.2019 in Special Civil Application
No.18000 of 2018 and other allied matters has considered Rule
15(2), which has been referred in Para 9.2 of the said
judgment and the issue being same in this case, the present
petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside
the bills at Annexure "E" and Annexure "F".
14. Learned advocate heavily relied upon the judgment
rendered in the case of Hubli vs. Subha Rao Hanumantharao
Prayag and others reported in AIR 1976 1393 to submit that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the bill is not
raised in the official year by framing the assessment, the same
being beyond the rules, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
15. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner submitted
that in this case, the bills at Annexure "E" and "E" (Page-45,
46 and 47) were issued first time in the year 2023-24. Upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
issuance of the bills in the year 2024, immediately the petition
was filed. Prior to issuance of bills, no Notice was served to
the petitioner. This aspect is evident from the Notice at
Annexure "B" (Page-192 to the reply). This Notice is dated
09.03.2025.
16. In response to this submission, learned advocate
Mr.H.S.Munsahw with the assistance of officer present in the
court, submitted that said bill refers to special notice number
with the last 4 digits reflecting the year 2021. He further
submitted that the last bill, on which the reliance is placed, is
date of print and not the date of bill.
17. Considered the submissions. It is noticed that the issue in
this petition is identical to Special Civil Application No.2962 of
2024 and other writ petitions. This court deems it appropriate
not to give separate reasons therefore, the arguments canvassed
by the respective parties and conclusions therein being squarely
applicable, the entire judgment of even date dated 08.05.2025
in Special Civil Application No. 2962 of 2024 and allied
matters, is reproduced herein below:
"1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw
waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.
2. The issue involved in all these petitions is in relation to levy and
demand of property tax for the plots possessed by respective petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
3. These group of petitions are filed seeking to quash and set aside
the property tax bills issued by respondent- Jamnagar Municipal
Corporation. Interim prayer, in each of the petitions seeking to restrain
respondent-corporation from effecting recovery pursuant to the impugned
bills is also prayed. It is case of the petitioners that in all these petitions,
challenge is with respect to levy, demand and recovery of property tax,
for their respective premises, for the years 2013-2014 to 2023-2024. It is
contended that the levy and consequential demand is un-authorised,
ultra-vires to the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder, and therefore,
the bills deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4. In all these petitions, this Court had issued notice, and granted ad-
interim relief directing respondent-corporation not to take any coercive
action of recovery in respect of the bills raised. Since the issue involved
in these captioned writ petitions is similar, with consent of learned
advocates for the respective parties, all these petitions are heard and
decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts
referred in Special Civil Application No.2962 of 2024 are recorded for
adjudication of the issue involved in all these petitions.
5. Factual background: [Taken from Special Civil Application No. 2962
of 2024].
(i) The petitioner herein is having his place of business within the
limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. Prior to 2013, the said place
of petitioner was earlier within the Nagar Sim limits of village Dared.
Thereafter, by notification dated 04.10.2013, issued under the provisions
of GPMC Act, village Dared with other villages was included within
larger urban area of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. Admittedly, the
said notification was issued in the year 2006 however, enforced w.e.f
04.10.2013. Thus, enforcement of notification w.e.f. 04.10.2013 is not in
dispute as also the aspect that presently the property is situated within
the limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The notification dated
04.10.2013, is annexed at Annexure -A page 13 of Special Civil
Application No.2072 of 2024.
(ii) The petitioner is holding the plot acquired by GIDC in Phase III.
Possession of said plot with the petitioner is not in dispute and as on
date also the petitioner is in possession and running his/ her business
there.
(iii) Similar is the situation with all the petitioners and all the
petitioners of captioned writ petitions are carrying on their business from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
their respective plots, in the area acquired by GIDC phase- III. Aggrieved
by demand raised by respondent- corporation of property tax by issuance
of bills, these petitions are filed.
6. Submissions of Petitioners
(i) Heard learned advocates Mr. Nishith Acharya with Ms.Bansi Karia
for the petitioners. Learned advocate submitted that action initiated by
respondent-Corporation demanding property tax by issuance of bills from
the year 2013-2014 to 2023-2024, is erroneous on the following grounds
and therefore the bills raised deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(ii) It is case of the petitioners that the bills were issued de hors the
provisions of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 and the
Rules framed thereunder because the bills have been issued without
framing assessment for each official year and are issued for a
consolidated period of 11 years. As per the extant rules, framing of
assessment, recording the same in the assessment book, inspection of
assessment book, inviting objections and making demand by raising bills
is required to be completed before expiry of official year. In these cases,
since the consolidated bills for the period 2013-2014 to 2023-2024 were
raised without framing the assessment for each official year, they are in
breach of statutory provisions and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(iii) The consolidated bills issued are contrary to the Taxation Rules
framed under Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
(hereinafter referred to as "Taxation Rules"). As per procedure
contemplated under the Taxation Rules, the authority is required to assess
the site and upon assessment being framed they are required to issue
estimated bills. Against estimated bills it is open for the occupant to raise
objections. If no objections are raised by the occupant or if the objections
filed are not acceptable, then only final bills can be issued during
concerned official year. Thus, after the official year, no bills can be
issued. Therefore, since the procedure has not been followed, the
consequential action of issuance of bills is bad in law.
(iv) As per the settled legal position, assessment must be completed
before close of the official year. The official year has been defined under
Section 2(44) of GPMC Act; i.e 1st of April every year. In this case, since
the bills have been issued after the official year, they are invalid bills.
Moreover, to have a valid list of assessment, the assessment framed for
the respective properties needs to be authenticated before the expiry of
official year. In absence of any valid list (authenticated), as held in
following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, issuance of property tax
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
bills for the period 2013- 2014 to 2023- 2024, needs to be quashed and
set-aside:
1. Hubli vs. Subha Rao Hanumantharao Prayag and Ors.
reported in AIR 1976 SC 1393
2. Anant Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation Cor the City
of Ahmedabad reported in XIII (2) GLH 897
(v) Further, before issuance of bills, no opportunity of computation or
opportunity to raise objections was given and, therefore, provisions of
Rules 21A and 21B are not attracted in the facts of present case. Zone
wise proper facilities not being provided by the Municipal Corporation,
the levy of property tax is illegal and therefore also not required to be
paid by the petitioner.
(vi) Learned advocate submitted that the said issue is no more res integra
in view of decision in the case of Vijayan Rajamanicka Nadar Pagalam
vs. Jamangar Municipal Corporation in Special Civil Application No.18000
of 2018 and other allied writ petitions wherein, this Court after taking
into consideration all contentions of respondent- Corporation has allowed
the petition by quashing and setting aside the bills issued levying
property tax for the period from 2006 to 2013. It is held by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018, that consolidated bills levying
property tax for the period 2006 to 2013 cannot be issued, and the same
act being repeated here, these petitions deserve to be allowed. Further,
against the decision in Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018, the
Corporation has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein,
only notice has been issued vide order dated 09.12.2019.
7. Submissions of Respondents
(i) Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw appeared
for respondent Corporation and submitted at the outset that demand for
the years 2013-14 to 2017-18 shall not be enforced and therefore
submissions only relating to 2018 onwards be considered. He further
submitted that three affidavits-in-reply are filed on behalf of respondent
Corporation. Referring to the affidavit dated 03 07.2024 (1 st affidavit-
page 18 in Special Civil Application No.2962 of 2024) learned advocate
submitted that:
(a) Respondent No.1- Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC), has
enacted Special Act No.3 of 1999 introducing Area Based Property Tax
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
System, for assessment of property tax; for the properties situated within
territorial limits of Municipal Corporation.
(b) The State Government through its Urban Development and Urban
Housing Department issued Notification on 10.08.2005, extending
territorial limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, vide
Notification dated 04.10.2013, it included 17 villages within territorial
limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and therefore, all properties
referred in these petitions are within territorial limits of Jamnagar
Municipal Corporation. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation ( JMC for
short ), being a civic body is duty bound to provide various civic
facilities like road, water supply, drainage, streetlights, parks, gardens
and other related services. JMC collects property tax as per Section
141 of GPMC Act and the Taxation Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly,
JMC assessed tax in relation to all 3215 industrial / commercial plots and
1200 residential plots within GIDC, Phase-II and III which is within the
limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. Since GIDC Phase I was part
of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation from beginning, it was and is being
assessed to property tax.
(c) Learned advocate at the outset submitted that in all these
captioned petitions, the issue under consideration is with regard to levy
of property tax for the period from 2018-2019 to 2023-2024, and
therefore levy of property tax for other years may be enforced. Tax was
levied after following due procedure as contemplated under the Act and
the Rules and after framing the assessments in respective cases. Further,
issue with regard to levy of property tax for the period from 2006-2013,
is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, from the year
2018-2019, property tax was levied after framing assessment and tax
bills were served regularly from the year 2018-2019. Therefore,
submission of the petitioner that the issue is no more res integra in view
of decision of Vijayan Rajamanicka Nadar Pagalam vs. Jamnagar
Municipal Corporation in Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018, is
not correct because the facts are not similar. Further, approximately
Rs.150 crores have been spent during the last 8 years providing amenities
to GIDC Phase II and III, which is subject matter of present petitions and
still development work of approximately more than Rs.200 crores is in
progress. Without funds, it would be impossible for the Corporation to
provide the amenities which the petitioners are enjoying at the moment.
(d) Lame attempt is made to file these petitions, on the ground of
issue being covered by the decision in the case of Vijayan Rajamanicka
Nadar Pagalam vs. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation in Special Civil
Application No.18000 of 2018 and allied writ petitions suppressing that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
the plot holder's association had approached the respondent corporation,
with a proposal to make payment of property tax for the period of 10
years, if their cases can be considered for waiving interest and penalty.
The correspondence at Annexure F page 67 dated 07.10.2021, Annexure
G page 70 dated 10.11.2021, Annexure H page 71 dated 17.08.2023
supports the submission of Corporation that association had approached
and shown willingness to make payment of property tax. A memorandum
of understanding at Annexure J page 87 was executed between GIDC
Association and Jamnagar Municipal Corporation wherein the members
have agreed for payment of taxes from 01.04.2018 and therefore also
filing of these petitions is an afterthought.
(e) Further, after framing assessment, bills were served to respective
petitioners, and this aspect is evident from Annexure E page 59. Learned
advocate at this stage submitted that the officer of Municipal Corporation
is present with all documents for perusal of the Court and upon perusal
of these documents it would be evident that each property was assessed
for property tax and served with bill before end of the official year.
(ii) By placing reliance on further affidavit dated 01.03.2025, (2 nd
affidavit- page-122 in Special Civil Application No.2962 of 2024), learned
advocate submitted that to support the contention of respondent JMC
that, all petitioners were assessed during official year and then served
with respective property tax bills, specimen copies are annexed at
Annexure A and service thereof to the respective petitioners is annexed at
Annexure D page 138. Communication made by Tax Officer, Jamnagar
Municipal Corporation to the postal department for grant of bulk business
of speed post is annexed at page Nos.142 and 143. Page No.144 reflects
the service, and the endorsement made thereon. Therefore, service of
property tax bills to petitioners is evident.
(iii) Moreover, the affidavit dated 08.03.2025 (3 rd affidavit page 152 in
Special Civil Application No.2692 of 2024) narrates the procedure adopted
by the respondent corporation before issuance of bills. Learned advocate
by placing reliance on affidavit dated 08.03.2025, submitted that the
property tax was levied under Section 141 of GPMC Act. Section 141B of
GPMC Act refers to area-based property tax system, which has been
followed in these cases. Since the petitioners are within territorial limits
of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, as required under Chapter VIII of
Schedule to GPMC Act, which contains the Taxation Rules, the property
owner is liable to give notice to the Commissioner as prescribed under
Rules 3 to 5. In these cases, the same has not been followed by
respective petitioners. Therefore, the Corporation surveyed and assessed
industrial units and residential units of GIDC Phase-II and III and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
prepared an online assessment book, as contemplated under provisions of
Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules. The survey and measurement with regard
to 1656 and 1318 Industrial units of GIDC of Phase II and III ,
respectively ,was carried out. Similarly, survey and measurement of 1002
units of GIDC Phases I and II were also completed. Moreover, there are
in all 605 open plots in GIDC Phase II and III and similar exercise was
carried out for the said properties also. Since entire system works online,
complete details of preparation of assessment book online were made
available to public at large. Specimen copies of online assessment
information available, as uploaded by Corporation is annexed at Annexure
A page 162 to the affidavit dated 08.03.2025.
(iv) Therefore, all these properties were surveyed, measured and
recorded in the assessment book. Thereafter, the notices were served on
all unit owners under the provision of Rule 15(2) of Taxation Rules under
Chapter VIII of GPMC Act.
(v) Industrial units as well as residential units were sent notices
through post and in case of vacant plots, the notices were served
personally through staff members of property tax department. The
endorsement in the register supports the service made. Service of notice
to the unit holders is made by two separate modes i.e., through post as
well as online portal. The postal certificates are also annexed along with
the reply. Despite the service of the assessment, till date no objections
have been received against the notices issued under Rule 15(2) of
Taxation Rules.
(vi) As per Rule, if no objections have been raised against the entry
made in the assessment book under Rule 15(2) of the Taxation Rules, the
Corporation is competent to proceed further to issue bills under the
provisions of Rule 39 which has been done in these cases. Identical
procedure was followed by administration, and it has prepared two
separate registers in this regard indicating bills sent through UPC (Under
Postal Certificate) as well as served personally through staff members.
Once assessment is prepared, the same would be valid for a block of 4
years unless there is an alteration in property. Therefore, the contention
raised by petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Rule 21(A) of the
Rules and assessment book need not be prepared every official year. The
assessment book, in absence of any change, is valid for a period of four
years. Rule 21(2) stipulates that a new assessment book is to be prepared
at least once in every four years which is done in these cases. Thus,
more than 312000 properties were assessed for property tax and other
related taxes. Respondent Corporation maintains Online Data Base of all
properties for property tax and other taxes which is evident and available
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
on the website of the respondent i.e. www.mcjamnagar.com
(vii) The respondent Corporation after first assessment in the year 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018 has carried out 'Chaturvarshiya Akarani'; i.e.
assessment for the block period of four years for 2018 to 2022 which is
evident from the assessment book. The issuance of assessment notice and
final updating of bills are annexed at Annexure B page 173. Learned
advocate further submitted that the assessment being a continuous process
after 2018-2022, the Corporation has started the 'Chaturvarshiya Akarani'
of 2023-2027 and public notices for the same are issued and partial
completion of the same is evident from Annexure C page 181. Therefore,
this is not a case where no assessment is framed or that the bills were
not issued in the official year and the facts being different from the
decisions relied upon, these petitions deserve to be rejected with
exemplary cost.
(viii) In support of his submissions with regard to levy of property tax,
Learned Advocate for JMC relied upon following decision: -
(1) Judgment dated 21.07.2016 in Special Civil Application Nos. 16400
of 2015 and allied writ petitions in case of Tokle Timber Mart vs.
State of Gujarat & Anr.
8. Conclusions
(i) Considered the submissions and decisions relied upon. In view of
the statement made by Mr. Munshaw that demand for the period 2013-14
to 2017-18 will not be enforced, submissions of both sides are considered
only for the period 2018 onwards. Considering the averments made in the
pleadings and submissions canvassed by respective parties, following
issues arise for consideration:
(a) In facts of these cases, whether the property tax levied and
demand raised by issuing bills, for the properties occupied by the
respective petitioners can be stated to be retrospectively levied after end
of official year?
(b) Whether in the facts of these cases, service of bills can be said to
be effected before end of the Official year?
(c) Whether the issue involved in these petitions is squarely covered
by the decision of this Court in the case of Vijayan Rajamanicka Nadar
Pagalam vs. Jamangar Municiapl Corporation in Special Civil Application
No.18000 of 2018 as contended by the petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
9. For adjudication of the above issues, it would be apposite to revisit
following facts and the provisions of law.
(i) Undisputedly, properties of the petitioners are situated within the
limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and therefore amenable to
payment of property tax under the provisions of GPMC Act and the
Taxation Rules framed thereunder.
(ii) For the property tax levied and demand raised by issuing bills from
the year 2006-2013, the petitioners had preferred Special Civil Application
before this Court wherein demand of property tax has been quashed and
set aside and SLP challenging this Court's order is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whereas in the cases on hand, the issue pertains
to levy of property tax for the years 2018-2019 to 2023-2024. It is
contended on behalf of respondent Corporation that validity of levy and
demand of property tax by corporation may be restricted for official years
2018-2019 to 2023-2024; and therefore, these petitions are considered as
to whether the levy and demand of property tax for the official years
2018-2019 to 2023-2024 is valid or not.
(iii) It is case of the petitioners that the issue is squarely covered by
the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018
and allied matters because prior to date of issuance of bills at Annexure
B page 14 dated 08.01.2024, no bills were raised and served to the
petitioners and therefore the assessment cannot be stated to be recorded
in the assessment book for the years 2018-2019 to 2023-2024. Since no
assessment has been recorded in the assessment book, for official years
2018-19 to 2023-24, the question of raising objections would not arise
and thus, there is breach of procedural rules. The levy and demand of
property tax therefore being illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(iv) Against the contentions of the petitioners, three replies have been
filed by the respondent - Corporation. In the reply dated 03.07.2024
(page 18) reliance has been placed on inclusion of properties of the
petitioners into Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. Section 141 of GPMC
Act is referred for the levy of property tax and recording of 1,02,333
newly added properties, in the assessment book. The averment with
regard to assessment framed, recorded in the assessment book, and service
of bills has been made. Distinction has been carved out in the affidavit to
the effect that the issue pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
pertains to demand of property tax up to year 2013 and in these cases,
the issue is in relation to levy and demand of property tax for the years
2018-2019 to 2023-2024, wherein the assessments in respective cases were
recorded in assessment book during official year, by following
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
"chaturvarshiya aakarni". Objections were invited by putting the
petitioners to notice and thereafter assessments were finalised during
official year. The bills were thereafter prepared and served to the
petitioners. For proof of service of bills; delivery register is annexed at
page 59. Other documents referred are minutes of meetings between
property holders and Municipal Corporation, for payment of property tax.
(v) In the second affidavit filed dated 01.03.2025, bills generated from
the year 2018-2019 followed by year 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022,
2022-2023 and 2023-2024 were placed by way of specimen bills.
Assessments of property tax in all cases for 2018-2019 to 2023-2024,
before end of the official year was done and generation of bills is asserted
annexing bills at Annexures A and B. As informed by Learned Advocate
Mr. Munshaw for respondent- Corporation, Shri Jignesh Jitendrakumar
Nirmal, In-charge Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Tax) was present
with the original documents like assessment book, bills generated and
proof of service.
(vi) The third affidavit dated 08.03.2025, reads as under:
"7. The respondent No.2 submits that Jamnagar
Municipal Corporation has carried out all the due
process of assessment & billing of the property tax.
8. Respondent No.2 most humbly submits that,
industrial units and residential units of GIDC, Phase
2 and 3 were surveyed and assessed and on-line
assessment book was prepared as per the provisions
of Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules. It is submitted
that, survey and measurement with regards to 1656
and 1318 industrial units of GIDC, Phase 2 and 3
was carried out. It is further submitted that
similarly, survey and measurement of 1002
residential units of GIDC, Phase 2 and 3 were also
completed. It is pertinent to note that there are in
all 605 open plots in GIDC, Phase 2 and 3 and
similar exercise was carried out for the said
properties also. It is reiterated that complete details
were made available about the properties On-line
for public at large. A copy of the online assessment
information is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure: A.
9. The respondent no.2 submits that all these
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
properties were surveyed and measured, and
thereafter, individual notices were served on all the
units' owners under the provision of Rule 15(2) of
the Taxation Rules under Chapter-8 of the Gujarat
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
10. The respondent no.2 submits that running units
as well as residential units were sent notices
through post while so far as the vacant plots are
concerned, it was thought fit to serve the notices
personally through staff members of Property Tax
Department.
11. The respondent no.2 submits that the authority
is having registers about the service of notices to
the unit holders by way of two separate modes, as
stated herein above. It is stated that the posts were
sent through under the Postal Certificates which is
so clear from the record.
12. The respondent no.3 submits that respondent
no.2 craves leave to produce both the registers
during the course of hearing of present Special Civil
Application.
13. The respondent no.2 submits that not a single
unit holder has submitted objections against
individual notices issued under Rule 15(2) of the
relevant Taxation Rules.
14. The respondent no.2 submits that, as there were
no objections of this assessment notices issued
under Rule 15(2), as referred to herein above, it
was though fit to proceed further and issued bills
for the taxation under the provisions of Rule 39. It
is stated that identical procedure was followed by
the administration and it has prepared two separate
registers in this regard indicating bills served
through U.P.C. (Under Postal Certificates) as well as
handed over personally through staff members.
15. The respondent no.2 submits that the contention
raised by the petitioner association is contrary to
the provisions of Rule 21(a) of the relevant Rules
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
and it is categorically ruled that new assessment
book need not be prepared every official year. It is
also provided that even under certain circumstances,
assessment book may be prepared, completed etc.
after the expiry of year to which it relates.
16. The respondent No.2 submits that as per the
Rule 21(2) A new assessment book is to be
prepared at least once in every four years.
17. The respondent no.2 submits that there are in
all more than 312000 properties which are assessed
for property taxes and other taxes. The respondent
no.2 is maintaining On Line Data Base of all
assesses for the property taxes and other taxes. In
another word, the assessment register is maintained
and is available online and any assessee can have
hard copy of it provided a property tax number is
available. The Website of the respondent is
WWW.MCJAMNAGAR.COM
18. The respondent No.2 submits that after the first
assessment in 2016-17 & 2017-18, Jamnagar
Municipal Corporation has carried out the
Chaturvarshiya Akarani 2018-2022. And the public
notice for the same, the completion of the
assessment, viewing of the assessment book,
issuance of assessment notice and finally updating
of billing are annexed herewith and marked as
annexure-B.
19. The assessment is a continue process and after
the 2018-22, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has
started the Chaturvarshiya Akarani of 2023-27. The
public Notice for the same and partial completion
of the same are annexed herewith and marked as
annexure-C.
20. It is stated that non-payment of huge amount of
property tax and other taxes has adversely affected
the financial position of Jamnagar Municipal
Corporation and resultantly, developmental works
are paralyzed and ultimately, sufferer is public at
large. Hence, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
not to grant any interim-relief and reject the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
present Special Civil Application in limine with cost
in the interest of justice."
10. On the above referred facts, it would be beneficial to refer to
certain provisions of GPMC Act and the Taxation Rules framed
thereunder.
(i) Chapter XI referrers to Municipal Taxation, wherein Section 127 of
GPMC Act provides for imposition of property tax.
(ii) Section 139 of GPMC Act provides for primary liability of person for
property taxes. Section 141 of the GPMC Act, provides for Property taxes
to be a first charge on premises on which they are assessed. Therefore,
as envisaged under these charging Sections, levy of property tax under
the provisions of GPMC Act is mandatory.
(iii) For levy of such property tax, procedure as envisaged under Chapter
VIII- Taxation Rules of GPMC Act is required to be followed. In the
above context, if Taxation Rules are considered, Rule 1 to Rule 3
provides for liability for payment of property tax as conferred by Section
141 of GPMC Act.
(a) Rule 9 provides for contents of Assessment book which mandates
the Commissioner to keep assessment book with the contents as referred
in the said Rule for every official year. In other words, the Commissioner
shall maintain the assessment book for every official year with all the
details referred in this rule, which includes the ratable value and rate of
property tax fixed by the Corporation.
(b) Rule 13 provides to give public notice when valuation of property
of any ward has been completed. Rule 13(1) reads as under:
"13(1) When the entries required by clauses (a), (b),
(c) and (d) of rule 9 have been completed, as far as
practicable, [in the assessment-book or any section
thereof] the Commissioner shall give public notice
thereof and of the place where the assessment-book or
the section], or a copy of it, may be inspected."
Thus, when the entries in assessment book have been completed as far as
practicable as required under Rule 9 ,clause (a) which refers to list of
buildings or lands or premises, clause (b) which refers to relatable value
of property, clause (c) which refers to name of the person primary liable
for the payment of property tax and clause (d) which refers to buildings
or land or premises not liable to be assessed to general tax, amongst
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
others, than the commissioner shall give public notice providing
inspection of assessment book specifying time and date.
(c) Rule 14 refers to assessment-book to be open to inspection.
(d) Rule 15 provides for time limit for filing complaints against
valuation to be publicly announced. Under Rule 15, the Commissioner is
required to provide time of not less than fifteen days from the
publication of such notice, to lodge objections against the amount of any
relatable value entered in the assessment-book. In view of above
procedural requirement, if the facts and the procedure adopted by the
respondent-corporation in the present case is analysed then in these cases
as stated in the affidavit, residential and industrial units of GIDC, Phase
II and II were surveyed and assessed and on-line assessment book was
prepared as per the provisions of Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules. It is
submitted that, survey and measurement with regards to 1656 and 1318
industrial units of GIDC, Phase II and III was carried out. Similarly,
survey and measurement of 1002 residential units of GIDC, Phase II and
III were also completed. Similar exercise was carried out for all open
plots of GIDC phase II and III. Complete details were made available
about the properties On-line for public at large. Online assessment
information available is annexed Annexure: A page 162. Individual notices
were served on all the units' owners under the provisions of Rule 15(2)
of the Taxation Rules under Chapter-8 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949. These individual notices were served personally as
also through post. The register evidencing service was made available
during the course of hearing. It is case of the respondent-corporation that
despite notices served to respective petitioners, no objections were
received. Since no objections were received against notice issued u/r
15(2) of the Taxation Rules, the respondent- corporation generated bills
u/r 39 of Taxation Rules and served to the petitioners. Service of bills
were effected through post as well as hand delivery.
At this stage considering submission of respondent- corporation and the
proof of service placed on record, it would be apposite to refer to Section
27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 which reads as under:
"27. Meaning of service by post.-Where any [Central
Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of
this Act authorizes or requires any document tobe
served by post, whether the expression "serve" or
either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any
other expression is used, then, unless a different
intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and
posting by registered post, a letter containing the
document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been effected at the time at which the letter
would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
Applying the said provision, service in these cases can be stated to be
effected as evident from communication dated 14.02.2023 of post master
Jamnagar (H.O.)at page 143. Thereafter, for Chaturvarshiya Akarani 2018-
2022, the relevant procedure followed is forming part of record of Special
Civil Application No.2962 of 2024 at Annexure-B page 169 onwards.
11. Therefore, the contention on behalf of respondent- corporation that
the assessments were framed in cases of respective petitioners, thereafter
recorded in the assessment book before end of the official of each official
year, following 'chaturvarshiya aakarni' merits acceptance. Further, the
respondent providing inspection of assessment book, inviting objections
and the publication thereafter is also evident from record. Therefore,
contention of the petitioners that for the assessment year 2018-2019 to
2023-2024, no assessments were framed during official year and the bills
were not served to the petitioners as also the procedure not followed as
contemplated under the provisions of Rules 13 to 15 i.e the publication
and inspection, in the opinion of this Court, does not merit acceptance.
12. With regard to the service of bills, apart from online availability of
bills on the website of corporation, as per Section 27 of General Clauses
Act, in the opinion of this Court, once the notices are properly addressed
and given to the postal authority for service, it amounts to valid service
and in these cases, the respondent corporation has placed on record the
correspondence entered between them and the postal department for
service of notice and the same is evident from the Annexure at Page 142
and page 143, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it amounts to
effective service and requires to be treated as served to the petitioners.
13. Therefore, the issues framed that- whether, in facts of these cases,
is it a case where assessments have been framed in the official year and
thereafter bills were served, in the opinion of this Court is required to be
answered in the affirmative. In the cases of all the petitioners, the
assessments were framed before end of official year and the bills were
also served before end of the official year. Issue nos. 1 and 2 are
answered accordingly.
14. Further, rule 21 permits the authority not to prepare a new
assessment book, in absence of any alteration in the property. Moreover,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
Rule 21B permits assessment to be framed at the interval of every four
years which has been done in the present case as stated in the affidavits
filed.
15. Now in relation to the third issue that the issue raised in these
petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Special Civil
Application No.18000 of 2018 and allied maters, it is noticed that in
Special Civil Application No.18000 0f 2028, the prayer made was with
regard to quashing and setting aside of the tax bills dated 07.07.2018.
Admittedly, in those cases, the bills were issued for the period 2006-2013
and it was case of the petitioners therein that prior to 07.07.2018, no
bills were issued. In Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018, it was
further case of the petitioners that no authentication of assessments for
the official year from March 2006 to October 2013 was done. Since no
assessments were framed on or before end of the official years,
resultantly bills were not prepared and served during official year.
Therefore, since the assessments in those cases were framed and bills
were served after expiry of the official year, the recovery effected by
respondent Municipal Corporation retrospectively was declared bad in
law. On above facts in the decision dated 15.07.2019, in Special Civil
Application No.18000 of 2028, this Court by referring to Section 127 (3)
held that Municipal taxes are required to be assessed and levied in
accordance with the provisions of GPMC Act and the Taxation Rules. This
Court further placing reliance on Rule 9 and Rule 15(2) which refers to
assessment book and Rule 21B which refers to the manner and method in
which assessment book shall be prepared and completed etc., in facts of
those cases held that the same was not done during relevant official
years. Reliance was placed on decision in the case of Anant Mills Co.Ltd
vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (1975) 2 SCC 175. In the
decision in the case of Anant Mill Co. Ltd. (supra) it is held that the
assessment of the property tax for any particular official year must be
completed before expiry of the official year. In the said decision it is
further held that the procedure for assessment and levy of property tax
set out in those provisions, must be completed before expiry of the
official year and no assessment can be made after official year. In the
said decision of this court , reliance is also placed on the decision in the
case of Kanaiya Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assessment and Recovery Officer and
Anr. reported in (2003) 1 GLH 449 wherein also the preparation of
assessment book during official year has been reiterated.
16. Reliance was also placed independently on the decision in the case of
L.M.Patel vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation reported in 1995 1 GLH
1198; and Hubli vs. Subha Rao Hanumantharao Prayag and Ors. which
has been considered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.18000
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
of 2018. In those cases also, the facts were to the effect that assessments
were not framed and recorded during official year for the levy of
property tax. Whereas, in the cases on hand this court cannot ignore the
affidavits filed and the documents annexed justifying assessments framed
in case of respective properties of the petitioners and recorded in the
assessment book. The procedure followed before service of bills is
considered in earlier paragraphs that assessment book was made available
to the petitioners for inspection, despite which no objections were raised
and thereafter bills were served. One more aspect this court would like to
highlight is about petitioners contending to being unaware about the
online availability of bills. The said contention falls to the ground in light
of the fact that the petitioners, through their association itself held
negotiations with the Respondent Corporation. Further, as contended by
the respondent-JMC that there are total 4460 properties in GID Jamnagar
phase II and III, and out of that 3580 properties have paid their taxes.
17. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, facts not being similar,
reliance placed by learned Advocate for the petitioners that the issue
involved in these petitions is squarely covered by decision of this court
dated 15.07.2019, in Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018, and no
more res-integra is not acceptable. Therefore, issue no. 3 is accordingly
answered that the decision relied upon would not be squarely applicable.
18. There are certain other decisions also relied upon by Mr. Acharya
for the petitioners. In the case of Batliboi and Co. Limited vs. Municipal
Corporation of the City of Surat in Special Civil Application No.131 of
1989, wherein the issue considered was rate of property tax recorded in
the assessment-book under Rule 9(e) of the Act and the same being not
the issue here, in the opinion of this Court, the said decision would not
be applicable.
19. In the case of Kanaiya Prints Private Limited vs. Assessment and
Recovery Officer reported in 2003 1 GLH 449, relied upon by learned
advocate for the petitioner, the consideration made was with regard to
contents of the Assessment Book before end of the official year under
Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules, which is not the issue to be considered in
these cases.
20. Reliance is also placed in the case of Municipal Corporation of
Ahmedabad vs. Jhaveri Keshavlal Lallubhai in First Appeal No.301 of
1961, where issue in the opinion of this court is about the rate of
property tax and the same being not the issue here would not be
applicable in the facts of this case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
21. In the case of Bhikhabhai Dahyabhai Jajadiay vs. Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation in Special Civil Application No.1544 of 2021, it is
noticed that the issue was about application of factor and the application
of rate of tax which is not the issue here and therefore, not considered in
detail.
22. In the decision in the case of Satish Dattatray Shivalkar (Dr.) vs.
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Anr. Reported in 2002 (0) AIR
(Bom) 244, the issue was in relation to the issuance of demand notices,
wherein it was considered that every entry in the assessment book or
alteration made therein is to be done during the official year, which is
not the case here and, therefore, has no application.
23. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. The
Tahsildar & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.4526-4527 of 2024, to submit that
the High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution can go into the disputed of question of facts. In the opinion
of this Court the said decision is not applicable in the present set of facts.
24. Moreover, from the rejoinder affidavit dated 17.03.2025 in Special
Civil Application No.2692 of 2024, it is noticed that averments are made
disputing service of notice. Allegations of false statements on oath by the
respondent- corporation were made. In other words, facts stated on oath
were disputed and thus at the most it may be a case of disputed
questions of facts with regard to service of notice. Therefore, the levy of
property tax in cases of petitioners in relation to their respective
properties and consequential demand raised in the opinion of this court,
are not without jurisdiction.
25. In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, since levy of
property tax being mandatory and once the levy is made after framing
the assessment during the official year, followed by entry in the
assessment book and the assessment book to be made available to the
person for inspection, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out
to quash and set-aside the bills issued for the years 2018 to 2024.
26. Therefore, all the petitions in so far as the challenge to demand of
property tax for the years 2018 to 2024 are concerned, are without any
merits and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly
dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief earlier granted stands
vacated forthwith. No order as to costs."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5713/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
1. In view of above order passed in Special Civil Application
No.2962 of 2024 and allied matters, the present petition stands
disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
Further Order
After pronouncement of judgment, learned advocate Mr.
Dipak Dave for the petitioner submitted that earlier stay
granted directing the respondents not to take coercive action,
may be continued for further period of eight weeks. In view of
reasoned order passed, the request made is rejected.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V./Sp.B-02
