Civil Revision challenging property tax assessment. The High Court held that the opportunity of hearing was provided to the applicant. Since he failed to show the annual letting value, the tax was assessed correctly under the relevant Acts. The revision was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
lHlHHHIIHHHHI|IHII|Hlll l
CFoooooom 99 ¢axxgmmmwmwmwvmk Wm ww
A§licangbt ‘D’.r PEaka gh Naran-iwari,é&T
\T 397 Qq‘ Tu“ MADHYJ‘a
;
PAL CQPQOI N 3r H.v J4)T ACirf l? 56
-
M
‘ @ Civil Revi$ion N0. 1729 of I 995 1 of2
HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ciw'E Revision Na 172G of 1995
APPLICANT
APPLICANT Dr. Prakaéi1 Narayan Tiwari VERSUS NON-APPLECANTS Municipalf Corporation, Durg 2 Commissibncr, Municipal Corporation, Durg 7 i {CivilRevision under Segtion 392 ”thc: Madhya PyadeSlJ. Municipal[v Corporation ct 19561 %{
NON-APPLECANTS
P1esonf
Smt Renu Kochar, Advocate pox t1 Unlicam Ms Shanmia Smahal Advocate fo‘ the non—applicants SB Hon ble Mr .P. Sharing,“ ORD _ ‘31 (Passedun i .0§.20i2) By thiS civil revision, applicant has challenged the legalitii 85 propriety of the ordor éated 24.08:;995 passed y the Hod Additional District lodge Durg it" Misc. Civil Appeal N. . 7/93 afhrmmg the ordel dated i701 .1991 passed by the Commissir‘ )ner Mumcipol Corporation Durg 1’1 I Proporty Tax Case N0, 637. What hy after lame of 14 vears assessed. propertytaxby Rs. 249.13 to Rs. 14 ‘7 20 Ihava learned counsel for the parfies and perused the order impugned, Learnsd comsel for the applicant S13. 3mits that while assessing the annual J letting value of tho house in quostioi opporturiitv of hearing has hot been provided.tothe applicant. Responds lithasnotfollowedtie procedure 01 prescribedforrevising the annual I sftihg value arid propeny tax, same has also not been considered by the V appella‘re Coui’r and had committed ' illeoali Learned counsel placed rehanee 1n th e matter of Municipal eorporation, Indore and othels s Smt. Rai naprahha 'Dhanda, Indore and £ another 1n whicii High Court of M idhya Pradesh held that assessmeht
989 M.P_L..i. 20
@ Civil Revision No‘ 1720 of 1995 2 of2
of annual letting vaiue of a. buiidmg cannQt exceed the upper limit 0f standard rent and if same is; not fixed, the assessing authority is rsquire to arrive at finding reiating to standard reg under Section 7 and 10 0f MP. Accommodation Central Act, 196 1.
Learned couasei far the respondents oppOSed the revision and submits fhafopportunity of hearing has been to the applicant, but, ‘proviéed reason best known to him he has failedi‘to show the annuai letting value, thereaiter, foliowing to procedure of p scribed annual Eetting value has been assessed and property tax has been imposed.
Chandra
As per records of Court below both t. e order impugned, applicant has failed to show the annual letting value of his property, thereafter it has been assessed by the respondent No.2. These shows that opportunity of hearing has been provided to the appli ant and respondent No.2 has not V committed any illegality in assessing th I property tax As held in case of Municipal corporation (supra) in e present case respondent has assessed the property tax, applicant hos failed to show that aforesaid annual letting value of the property is higher than standard rent, thereafter, Munieipal corporation (supra) on the ground that I do not find any illegality in order passed bv/ respondent No2- and by the appellate Court interference in exer oise» of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, revision is liable to be arid is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost.
Sd/. /\‘\ T.P. Sharma ;:/ _ Judge \
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the subordinate court committed any illegality in assessing property tax when the applicant failed to show the annual letting value of his property.
Whether the assessing authority erred in not providing an opportunity of hearing for revising the annual letting value.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal corporation, Indore and others, 1989 M.P.L.J. 20Referred¶10
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Prakashi Narayan Tiwari
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
