Partly allowed

Indus Towers Limited Pune and Ors. v. the Commissioner Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012WP/3380/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged retrospective property tax demands issued by Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation. The Court held such retrospective demands illegal and partly allowed the writ petition to quash specific notices and bills.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; special notices dated 8-1-1991 and bills dated 12-12-1991 quashed to extent of retrospective demand; fresh notices directed.

Indus Towers Limited Pune and Ors. Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP No.3380/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3380 OF 2012

¶5

1)Indus Towers Limited
A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act 1 of 1956, having
its Branch office, situate at
501 and 504, 5th Floor, Pentagon-1,
Magarpatta) Cyber City, Hadapsar,
Pune, Maharashtra 411 028.
2) Bharti Infratel limited,
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and its
Registered Office at Bharti
Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant kunj, Phase II,
New Delhi – 110 070 and having
its office at 7 floor, Interface
Building) Malad Link Road,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400064.
3)Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd.
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and
having its Registered Office
through it's Constituted
Attorney, i.e. Indus Towers
Ltd.- PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1)The Commissioner,
Nanded-Waghala Municipal
Corporation, Nanded.
2)The Deputy Commissioner,
Nanded-Waghala Municipal
Corporation, Nanded.
3)Nanded-Waghala Municipal
Corporation, Nanded.
Dist.Nanded. - RESPONDENTS

¶6

*****

¶7

2 WP No.3380/2012

¶8

Mr.Sachin S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners;
Mr.Murar V.Deshpande, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM: NARESH H.PATIL &
A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ.
DATE :25thSeptember,2012.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT:(PER:-A.B.CHAUDHARI,J.)

¶11

.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent
of rival parties. Heard learned Counsel for both the
parties.

¶12

2)There is no dispute that the Property Tax
Assessment Notices impugned in this petition (at
Exhibit-A collectively) are in relation to the
recovery of property tax with retrospective effect,
viz. by amending or altering the assessment entry.

¶13

3)The only submission made by Mr. Deshpande,
the learned Counsel for the Corporation is that there
is justification for making the retrospective
recovery from the petitioners, because it was not
clear, and, in fact, the lis was pending in this
Court as to whether the property tax could at all be
levied on the petitioners. Therefore, there are
bonafide reason for the municipal Corporation in
making demand of taxes retrospectively.

¶14

4) Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the rival parties, and in the light of the fact that the said question is no more res integra , we are of the view that the impugned demand

¶15

3 WP No.3380/2012

¶16

notices at Exhibit-A collectively, being of
retrospective nature, the same are clearly illegal.

¶17

5) We quote paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Satish Dattatraya Shiwalkar Vs. Pimpri – Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, - AIR 2002 Bom. 244 , in which the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sholapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Ramchandra Ramappa Madgundi, - 1973 Mh.L.J. 128 , has been followed.

¶18

"8.The law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in Solapur
Municipal Corporation and approved by
the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation
of City of Hubli and further re-
iterated in Kalyan Municipal Council is
applicable on all fours in the light of
the statutory provision contained in
Rule 20(1)(e) and definition of the
expression "official year" occurring in
Section 2(44). Any amendment in the
assessment book by inserting or
altering an entry in respect of any
building erected, re-erected, altered,
added to or reconstructed in whole or
in part of the assessment book shall be
and can only be effective during the
currency of official year. The
expression "official year" defined
under Section 2(44) of the Act of 1949
read with Rule 20(1)(e) indicates
without doubt the legal position that
the property tax being tax for the
official year must be levied only
during the official year. In view
thereof, it was not open for the
Commissioner to amend or alter
assessment entry of petitioner's
property with retrospective effect. In
other words, the demand of property tax
raised for the period from 1-4-1985 to

¶19

4 WP No.3380/2012

¶20

31-3-1990 vide demand noticed dated
8-1-1991 cannot be justified and to
that extent the notices as well as the
demand bills have to be modified.

¶21

9.We, accordingly, partly allow the
writ petition and partially quash the
specialnoticesdated8-1-1991
(Annexure "D" and "E") and bills dated
12-12-1991 (Annexures "G" and "H") to
the extent demand of property tax has
been raised with retrospective effect
for the period from 20-5-1985 till
31-3-1990.Therespondentsmay,
accordingly, issue fresh demand of
property taxes as per the aforesaid
observations."

¶22

6)In the light of above discussion, we make
following order:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

7)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (A) with further clarification that the
respondents may accordingly issue fresh demand
notices of property taxes. No costs.

¶25

sd/- sd/-
(A.B.CHAUDHARI)(NARESH H.PATIL)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

bdv/

¶27

Authenticated Copy

¶28

(BD VADNERE,PS)

Indus Towers Limited Pune and Ors. v. the Commissioner Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited Pune and Ors. v. the Commissioner Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Snehal Vishavjit Khadke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vasant Rohidas Patil Died Thr Lrs Nirmala Vasant Patil and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer(General) Dhule and Ors.

Bhagwat Gunderao Musane Vs the President Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandals Vidyavardhini Primary School Udgir and Ors.

Dilip Namdeo Wani and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaibhav Vivek Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharat Ramkisan Shingade Vs Sadanand Koche, Collector, Beed and Ors.