Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2255 of 2025 1 - Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited Through The Vice President (Works) Malpurikhurd, Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, Dist- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Durg, District Durg C.G. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Municipality Of Ahiwara, Dist- Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. S. B. Pandey, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 09/05/2025 Order on Board 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ and quash the orders dated 24.04.2025 read with 12.03.2025 (Annexure P/1 (Colly.), whereby the respondent No.: 3 has asked the petitioner to submit self-assessment of the property tax for the year 2015-16 as explained above, in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents not to enforce the orders dated 24.04.2025 read with 12.03.2025 (Annexure P/1 (Colly.)) for the same being absolutely irrational and expressing Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 unfettered powers on its part, contrary to mandate of law on the subject. 10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner, a large-scale cement manufacturer, has approached this Hon’ble Court being aggrieved by the orders dated 24.04.2025 read with 12.03.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, wherein the petitioner has been directed to submit a self-assessment of property tax for the year 2015–16 and deposit a sum of Rs. 2,61,48,350.00 as alleged arrears, on the basis that property tax had only been paid up to the year 2014–15. This sudden and retrospective demand has been raised nearly a decade later, despite the consistent year-on-year compliance with all legal obligations by the petitioner including timely payment of property taxes, and ongoing communication with the authorities throughout the period. Notably, in 2015, the petitioner was specifically asked to pay Rs. 25,20,567/- vide letter dated 28.10.2015 pursuant to Government instructions and municipal resolution, which was duly deposited under protest via cheque dated 30.11.2015 along with a request for reconsideration. Similar payments were made in subsequent years, including Rs. 13,20,567/- for 2016–17 and Rs. 14,63,780/- for 2024–25, with no indication of any outstanding liability. It was therefore entirely unexpected for the petitioner to receive the order dated 12.03.2025 asking for self-assessment under new rates with a five-day deadline, followed abruptly by the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 demanding a large sum as arrears, without any prior adjudication or reassessment. The conflicting directives, demanding a fixed amount while simultaneously scheduling a physical assessment, 3 highlight the arbitrariness of the actions on the part of respondents, which the petitioner asserts are a clear abuse of authority under the Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Chhattisgarh Municipality (Determination of Annual Letting Value of Building/Lands) Rules, 1997, causing undue hardship and warranting urgent judicial intervention. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 12.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 suffer from gross arbitrariness and constitute a clear case of unilateral exercise of authority by respondent No. 3, causing unwarranted harassment and mental agony to the petitioner. It is submitted that the very foundation of these orders is flawed, as they not only seek to reopen the assessment for the financial year 2015–16—despite the matter having been conclusively settled a decade ago—but also proceed to raise an exorbitant demand of Rs. 2,61,48,350/- without any due process or hearing. The impugned orders are self-contradictory in nature, as they simultaneously fix a specific amount of tax to be paid as arrears while also scheduling a physical assessment of the premises of petitioner, thereby rendering the determination of tax liability both premature and legally misconceived. It is further submitted that the attempt to revive and reassess the property tax for the year 2015–16 after a gap of nearly ten years, and in the absence of any intervening non-compliance or fresh cause of action, is wholly unjustified and amounts to a coercive attempt to extract undue revenue from the petitioner, in blatant disregard of the settled legal position and the industrial policy of the State that promotes ease of doing business. The petitioner had, at the relevant time, paid the property tax under protest and continued to make annual payments thereafter in good faith and in compliance with 4 all statutory demands raised from time to time. At no point during the intervening decade was any notice or objection raised by the respondents indicating any shortfall or default. 4. Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 jointly submits that the present petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, as it seeks to challenge the lawful exercise of authority by respondent No. 3, carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that the impugned orders dated 12.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 merely call upon the petitioner to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting a self-assessment of property tax in line with the revised valuation norms that came into force pursuant to the directive of the State Government dated 31.08.2015, read with the resolution of Municipality dated 05.10.2015. The respondent authorities, upon due scrutiny of the property tax records, found that the petitioner had deposited tax only up to the financial year 2014–15 and had failed to comply with the updated self-assessment norms applicable from 2015–16 onward. The amount demanded represents the legally recoverable arrears accruing from that lapse, and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to comply voluntarily before further steps were contemplated. It is further submitted that there is no contradiction in the impugned order, as the communication dated 24.04.2025 merely quantifies the arrears as per available data while simultaneously giving the petitioner a final opportunity to participate in the physical assessment process. The measurement process is a statutory safeguard to ensure accurate determination of liability and does not, by itself, nullify the legality of the quantified 5 demand. Moreover, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the argument of long passage of time, as continued non-compliance with updated self-assessment procedures cannot render the rightful dues of a statutory authority unenforceable. The municipal body is empowered to recover such dues as per law, and any leniency shown in the past due to pending clarifications or protest letters does not preclude recovery at a later stage. The petitioner, being a large-scale industry, was expected to be vigilant in complying with updated tax obligations, particularly when it had knowledge of the applicable resolution and had previously deposited tax "under protest" in acknowledgment of the ongoing assessment process. The State counsel further submits that the plea of petitioner of harassment and arbitrariness is misplaced and
Decision
an attempt to frustrate lawful revenue recovery. In view of the above, the present petition does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the writ petition. 6. Having considered the submissions of both parties and perused the records, this Court is of the view that while the respondent authorities are within their rights to enforce statutory tax obligations, such enforcement must be carried out in a fair, transparent, and legally consistent manner. The simultaneous issuance of a quantified tax demand and an order for physical assessment, without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to submit its materials, is procedurally deficient. Moreover, given that the issue pertains to alleged arrears from 2015–16, despite regular tax payments by the petitioner and ongoing correspondence with the authorities. 7. Respondent No. 3 is directed to grant the petitioner a reasonable 6 opportunity to submit its reply, documents, and any objections regarding the alleged outstanding dues. The authorities shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thereafter pass a reasoned order after considering the submissions of petitioner and all the relevant materials. Further, the premises of the petitioner shall be measured for the purpose of assessment of tax in accordance with law, in the week commencing 26th May, 2025. The measurement shall be carried out in the presence of the petitioner or its authorized representative. Considering the huge surrounding of the premises of petitioner, the petitioner is also advised to extend full cooperation and assistance to the authorities so that the process may be conducted smoothly and efficiently. 8. An application for intervention has been filed by Chief Municipal Officer, Ahirwara seeking intervention in the matter while stating that impugned order has been passed by the intervener, however, he is not been made as party properly. It has been submitted that some land has been illegally occupied by the petitioner, as such, in order to protect right of Municipal Council, Ahirwara, he is required to be properly arrayed and further he should be given proper opportunity of hearing. 9. Considering aforesaid aspect of the intervention application, particularly taking note of the fact that notice dated 24.04.2025 has been issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Ahirwara, the intervention application is allowed. It is further directed that wherever in the record or proceedings respondent No. 3 has been described as "Chief Executive Officer, Ahirwara" the same shall be read and construed as "Chief Municipal Officer, Ahirwara". 7 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 11. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE