Disposed¶7

Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited v. Municipal Council, Naya Nangal and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2026CWP/13250/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

House tax assessment; inclusion of value of foundation of machinery in value/annual value of building; Punjab Municipal Act 1911; Section 3(2) definition of 'building'; Municipal Council Naya Nangal; assessment order dated 21.02.1987 set aside by judgment dated 09.05.2025 in CWP-9915-1992; remand to competent authority; fresh determination of annual value; Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; CWP-13250-2009.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the competent authority for fresh assessment; petitioner free to raise the machinery-foundation-value question at the time of framing assessment per directions in CWP-9915-1992; pending applications disposed of. ¶7

Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Municipal Council could include the value of the foundation of machinery in the value/annual value of the building for house-tax assessment under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

¶1

Court's answer

As the assessment order dated 21.02.1987, which was the foundation of the demand for subsequent years, stands set aside by this Court, the matter is remanded to the competent authority.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to raise the question raised in this petition (inclusion of the value of the foundation of machinery in the building value) before the authorities at the time of framing assessment, as per this Court's directions in CWP-9915-1992; the substantive question was not decided by this Court.

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh), CWP-13250-2009, decided 24.02.2026 (Jagmohan Bansal & Amarinder Singh Grewal, JJ.). Writ by Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited against the Municipal Council, Naya Nangal's assessment (Annexure P-8) under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 including the value of the foundation of machinery in the value of the building for house tax. Since the assessment order dated 21.02.1987 — which formed the foundation of the demand for subsequent years — already stood set aside by this Court's judgment dated 09.05.2025 in CWP-9915-1992 (directing re-examination and fresh determination of annual value), and the respondent confirmed no intra-court appeal lay against that judgment, the Court remanded the matter to the competent authority and left the petitioner free to raise the foundation-value question at the framing of assessment. Petition disposed of accordingly; the substantive question whether machinery foundations form part of the building (respondent relying on the purportedly exhaustive definition of 'building' in S. 3(2)) was left open for decision in the fresh assessment. Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

201

¶4

CWP-13250-2009 Date of Decision: 24.02.2026

¶5

PUNJAB ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LIMITED ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NAYA NANGAL AND OTHERS …Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Sant Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Thakur, Advocate and Mr. Jaivir Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G. Punjab ***

¶12

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of assessment order (Annexure P-8) passed by Municipal Council whereby Municipal Council has included value of foundation of machinery in the value of building.

¶14

The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of caustic soda and other inorganic products. It constructed factory premises in 1984. It was exempted from house tax for three years under Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short ‘1911 Act’). The respondent vide order dated 21.02.1987 assessed petitioner’s house tax liability. The petitioner without objection deposited assessed liability up to

¶15

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.25 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-13250-2009

¶17

-2-

¶18

The assessment order of 1987 was challenged before this Court, however, not with respect to quantum of tax. The petitioner preferred appeal in 2001 before Appellate Authority which dismissed the same on the ground that there is no assessment order and appeal is filed against demand notice. The petitioner preferred revision before Government. Its revision came to be dismissed on the ground that foundation of machinery is part of building/factory, thus, value of foundation would be included in annual value. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that value of foundation of machinery cannot be included in the value of building. Foundation of any machine forms part of that very machine. The respondent has wrongly included value of foundation of machinery in the value of building. The petitioner preferred CWP-9915-1992 before this Court assailing assessment order dated 21.02.1987 whereby house tax was assessed. The petitioner also assailed orders passed by higher authorities. This Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2025 has set aside order dated 21.02.1987 and directed competent authority to re-examine the matter and undertake a fresh determination of the annual value of the petitioner’s premises.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner never assailed assessment order dated 21.02.1987. The petitioner for the first time in 2001 assailed inclusion of value of foundation of machinery in the annual value of the building. The petitioner could not challenge demand notice without challenging assessment order. The definition of ‘ building’ as per Section 3(2) of 1911 Act is exhaustive. It includes factory. Any kind of work whether masonry, bricks, wood, mud forms part of building and has to be included in the annual value.

¶20

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.25 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-13250-2009

¶22

-3-

¶23

On being asked, learned counsel for the respondent expressed his inability to controvert that respondent has not filed intra court appeal against aforesaid judgment dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court.

¶24

Having heard the arguments and considered the documents on record, we are of the considered opinion that matter needs to be remanded to competent authority as assessment order dated 21.02.1987 which was foundation of demand for subsequent years stands set aside by this Court. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise question raised herein before authorities at the time of framing assessment as per directions of this Court in CWP-9915-1992 .

¶25