AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—The case of the Petitioner is that it has properties bearing Nos. B-VII/145 and B-VII/146. situate at 12/4 Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad. It is alleged that the Petitioner let out one portion of property No. B-VII/145 to Messrs Hydraulics Pneumatics India Pvt. Ltd. at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-, one portion to Messrs Oriental Bank of Commerce on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- and a small portion has been retained by it for its own occupation. Property No. B-VII/146 has been let out to Shrimati Sarla Devi at an annual rent of Rs. 2,500/.
The Assessing Authority Urban Area Faridabad Complex (hereinafter referred to as the ''Authority'') assessed tax on House No. B-VII/145 amounting to Rs. 23,842/- and on Property No. B-VII/146 to Rs. 14,025/-, for the assessment year 1975-76. The same amounts of tax have been assessed on the aforesaid properties for the year 1976-77. The Petitioner has challenged the assessment order inter alia on the ground that no valuation lists were prepared relating to the Faridabad Complex by the Authority in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 1940 Act) and that the gross rental value of the buildings has not been worked out correctly. The writ petition has been contested by the Respondents.
The First question that arises for determination is as to whether the valuation list has been prepared by the Authority in respect of rating area of Faridabad Complex in accordance with law. In order to determine the question, it will be necessary to advert to some admitted facts. The Faridabad Complex was constituted under the Faridabad Complex (Regulation & Development) Act, 1971 with effect from January 15, 1972. It comprises of the Municipal Committees Faridabad Township, Faridabad Old and Ballabgarh and 17 Gram Panchayats. It is not necessary to give the names of the Gram Panchayats. 1940 Act was amended by the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) and Faridabad Comolex Administration was included in the definition of the ''local authority''. Faridabad Complex was then included in the definition of rating area by notification dated May 31,1974, published in the Haryana Govt. Gazette dated June 4, 1974. Thus, the 1940 Act became applicable to the properties situated in Faridabad Complex.
Section 3 of the 1940 Act deals with levy of taxes, Section 7 with making and operation of valuation list, Section 8 with draft valuation list and Section 9 with amendment of current valuation list. Section 3 inter alia provides that there shall be charged, levied and paid an annual tax on buildings and lands situated in the rating area shown in the Schedule to the Act at such rate, not exceeding twenty per centum of the annual value of such buildings and lands as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, direct in respect of each such rating area. In Section 7 the mrthod for preparation of valuation lists has been given. The relevant portion of the section reads as follows:
(1) A valuation list shall be made by the prescribed authority in accordance with the rules framed under this Act for every rating area so as to come into force either on the first day of April or the first day of October, and thereafter new valuation lists shall be made from time to time so that the interval between the dates on which one valuation list and the next succeeding valuation list respectively come into force shall be a period of five years;
Provided that the State Government may by order-
(a) extend or reduce by six months or one year the interval which would otherwise elapse between the coming into force of any two successive, valuation lists for any rating area; and
(b) divide any rating area into parts for the purposes of a new valuation list and determine the years in which the next following valuation list of each of such parts respectively shall be made and come into force.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any such order as aforesaid every valuation list shall come into force on the first day of April or the first day of October, as the case may be, next following the date on which it is finally approved by the assessing authority and shall subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder (including the provisions with respect to the alteration of and the making of additions to the valuation list) remain in force until it is superseded by a new valuation list.
(3) * * * *"
Section 9 authorises the authority to make such amendments in a valuation list as appear necessary to it. The section is as follows:
Subject to such rules, if any, as the State Government may think fit to make in this behalf the assessing authority may at any time make such amendments in a valuation list as appear to it necessary in order to bring the list into accord with existing circumstances and in particular may-
(a) correct any clerical or arithmetical error in the list;
(b) correct any erroneous insertions or omissions or any misdescriptions;
(c) make such additions to or corrections in the list as appear to the authority to be necessary by reason of-
(i) a new building being erected after the completion of the valuation list ;
(ii) a building included in the valuation list being destroyed or substantially damaged or altered since its value was last previously determined ;
(iii) any change in the ownership of any building or land;
Provided that not less than fourteen days before making under the foregoing provisions any amendment in the valuation list for the time being in force other than the correction of a clerical or arithmatical error, or the correction of an erroneous insertion, omission or misdescription, the assessing authority shall send notice of the proposed amendment to the owner of the building or land and shall also consider any objection thereto which may be made by him.
It is not disputed that the properties in dispute were not situated in the municipal areas of Faridabad Township, Faridabad Old and Ballabgarh. It is also not disputed that no valuation list was prepared regarding the properties u/s 7 of the Act
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the properties in dispute were situated within the area of one of 17 Gram Panchayats and, therefore, the question of preparation of a valuation list by the Municipal Committee ofridahad Township, Faridabad Old and Balhibgarh could not arise and even no valuation list with respect to it was prepared He further argues that after Faridabad Complex was declared as rating area, no tax could be imposed by the Authority unless it had prepared a valuation list in accordance with the provisions of Section 7. On the other hand, the learned counse for the Respondents has vehemently argued that a valuation list with respect to Faridabad Township had been prepared and had come into force with effect from April 1, 1968. In terms of Section 7 of the 1940 Act, a list once prepared remains in force for five years unless superseded by the new valuation list. The effect of merging three rating areas and substituting that by Faridabad Complex was that three lists stood merged into one valuation list and was deemed to have been extended to areas of 17 Gram Sabhas, which came to Faridabad Complex. He then submits that the list regarding Faridabad Township was an ended and brought upto date u/s 9 of the 1940 Act, which Faridabad Complex could do. According to him, it was not necessary that a list should have been prepared u/s 7. He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balmokand Kohli and Others Vs. State of Punjab, .
I have heard the learned Counsel at a considerable length and given due consideration to their arguments. Sections 7 and 9 of the 1940 Act have been reproduced above. As already stated above, it is not disputed that the properties of the petitiouer were not situated in either of the three Municipal Committees. In that situation, the question of preparation of valuation list regarding them could not arise. It appears that after coming into being of Faridabad Complex the valuation list of Faridabad Township was brought upto date u/s 9 and the properties were taxed. This, in my opinion, could not be done by the Authority. The Faridabad Complex is a different entity than the Municipal Committees of Faridabad Township, Faridabad Old and Ballabgarh. It was declared to be rating area under the 1940 Act separately. After it became a rating area, it became the duty of the Authority to prepare a fresh valuation list in accordance with the provisions of Section 7. It is true that in case the area of a Municipal Committee is extended, then it is not necessary to frame a new valuation list u/s 7 by the Municipal Committee. It can levy the tax by amendment of the valuation list already prepared u/s 9. In that view, I am fortified by the observation in Balmokand Kohli and thers''s case (supra). The relevant observations of the learned Divisoion Bench are as follows:
Assessing authority has power to make amendments in the valuation list prepared for a rating area, so as to bring that list into accord with the circumstances arising out of the inclusion of a built-up area in that rating area. A separate valuation list is not required by law for the case comes within S. 9 of the Act.
Power to make amendments in order to bring the valuation list in accord with the existing circumstances given by the provisions of law contained in the opening part of S. 9 of the Act is not restricted by Clauses (a) (b) and (c) which mention cases that are merely illustrative.
The above ratio, however, will not be applicable in the present case as the Faridabad Complex is a new entity and is not the extension of municipal areas of Faridabad Township, Faridabad Old and Ballabgarh.
It will also be relevant to point out that according to the Respondents, the valuation list with respect to Faridabad Township, on which reliance has been placed by the Respondents, came into force on April 1, 1968. According to Section 7, a valuation list remains into force for a period of five years. Under the proviso to the said section, it may be extended or reduced by six months or one year. In the present case, the tax is being imposed for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The list prepared in 1968 could normally continue up to 1973. It could be extended by six months or one year under the proviso. Thus, it could be extended at the most, upto 1974. By no law, it could be extended beyond 1974. Thus the Authority could not levy tax on the basis of the list prepared in 1968, in the assessment years 1975-76,1976-77. Taking it from either point of view, the tax levied by the Assesing Authority on the buildings of the Petitioner, is illegal and liable to be struck down.
Mr. Dewan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has next contended that the gross rental value of the buildings had not been worked out correctly. He argues that in order to determine the valuation of the properties, the principles laid down in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for fixing fair rent, should have been taken into consideration. He then argues that the actual rent recovered by the Petitioner was less and the Authority has fixed the gross annual rental value much high. It is not necessary to go into this matter as I have already struck down the assessment on the first argument.
For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the writ petition with costs and quash the impugned orders. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-.