High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Borah, learned SC, GMC. All the writ petitions based on same set of facts and raising the same g rievance, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common orde r. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 24.01.201 1 (dated 27.01.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3963/2011) by which as indicated in each one of the notices, Rateable Value has been assessed for the years 2010-2011 alongw ith property tax from first quarter of 2010-2011. The two grounds on which Mr. G aur, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued are as follows: 1) As per the requirement of the provision of Section 156 of Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, before passing the impugned assessment order, the author ity in the GMC ought to have provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter to pass a reasoned order taking note of all the pleas raised by both the parties. 2) Even if the impugned assessment orders are held to be legally valid, the asse ssment could not have been operated with retrospective effect. According to the petitioners, the impugned assessment orders being dated 24.01.2011 and 26.01.201 1, the proper tax could only be levied in the first quarter of 2011 and not in 2 010. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation, it has been stated that the impugned assessment orders have been passed pursuant to the policy dec ision of the respondent Corporation. In this connection, Annexures - A and B dat ed 28.09.2004 and 12.09.2008 respectively have been referred to. By Annexure -A, referring to the Govt. approval followed by the approval of the competent autho rity of the Corporation, it was ordered that all the Commissioners of GMC would realise the property tax of all the buildings within GMC area prior to 31.03.20 00 at the enhanced rate w.e.f. 01.04.2004 (1st quarter of 2004-2005). The Regist rar was ordered to collect the same with issuance of notice etc. By the second communication dated 12.09.2008, approval of the Administrator of t he GMC was conveyed enclosing therewith a copy of the land valuation prepared on the basis of the land valuation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M). A ccordingly, direction was issued to all the Commissioners, GMC to implement the fresh assessment of the property tax including reassessment w.e.f. 2nd quarter o f 2008-2009. As per the requirement of Section 156 of the aforesaid Act, the Commissioner wit h the approval of the standing committee shall prepare an assessment list of all lands and buildings in the city. When the assessment list is prepared, the Comm issioner shall give public notice thereof and of the place where the list or a c opy thereof may be inspected. The Commissioner shall at the same time, give noti ce of a date, not less then one month thereafter, when he would proceed to consi der the rateable value of lands and buildings entered in the assessment list. He shall also give written notice thereof to the owner or to any lessee or occupie r of the land or building. Any objection to a rateable value or assessment or an y other matter as entered in the assessment list shall be made in writing to the Commissioner before the date fixed in the notice and shall state in what respec t the rateable value, assessment or other matter is disputed and all objections so made shall be recorded in a register to be kept for the purpose. Objections a re inquired into and investigated and the person making them shall be allowed an opportunity of being heard either in person or by his authorised agent, by the Commissioner or any officer of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner. In the instant case, the petitioner was issued with impugned assessment order da ted 24.01.2011 in response to which the petitioner raised his objection by Annex ure-M letter dated 14.02.2011. Thereafter the Commissioner, GMC passed the secon d impugned order dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure-N) stating therein that determinatio n of annual rateable value was done as per the section 156 GMC Act, 1971 and fix ation of ARV is based on the land value fixed by Govt. of Assam in 2003 and cost of construction the property. From the above what is seen is that process for reassessment /assessment was ini tiated way back in 1984 as per Annexure-A order dated 28.09.2004 assessment was to be made at the enhanced rate effective from 2004. The said order followed by Annexure-B communication dated 12.09.2008 conveying the approval of the authorit y in the GMC and enclosing therewith a copy of the land valuation prepared on th e basis of the land valuation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M). By t he said communication, direction was issued to all the Commissioners, GMC to imp lement a fresh assessment for property tax including reassessment w.e.f. 2nd qua rter of 2008-2009. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that the reassessment was mad ar bitrarily or illegally. As indicated in the counter affidavit, such reassessment was due as earlier rate prevalent from some time past. This now leads us to the second argument given by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the assessment including the property tax could not have been imposed with retrospec tive effect as per the impugned notice dated 24.01.2011. However, learned SC, GM C submits that since the assessment list was already prepared, there is nothing wrong in making the rateable value effective from the earlier date. However, he fairly submits that if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the said retrospec tive operation of the assessment, it will always be open for them to approach th e GMC authority. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the p etitioners to approach the Commissioner, GMC in respect of his grievance relatin g to retrospective operation of the assessment of rateable value of property tax which according to the petitioners ought to have been fixed from the first quar ter of 2011 and not 2010. In the event of such approach, the Commissioner, GMC s hall pass appropriate order taking into account all the attending facts and circ umstances and in accordance with law.