AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep K. Shinde, J
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The annual letting value of the petitioners' property was revised by the Corporation in the year 1999-00. Before revising the annual letting value,
notice was issued to the petitioners on 4th May, 1999 in terms of Rule 20 for the proposed revision for further four years and called upon the
petitioners to file their objections. In response, thereto the petitioners filed objection on 30th April, 1999. The Deputy Tax Commissioner overruled the
objections and disposed of the complaint on 26th June, 2000 and therefore demand bill was issued on 19th October, 2000. In terms of the provisions of
Section 406 read with Section 407 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 Appeal against rateable value has to be brought within
15 days after accrual of cause of complaint. In terms of Clause (b) of sub-section 2 of Section 406 of the Act read with Section 407 clause (a), the
Appeal is to be presented or brought within 15 days from the date on which complaint made to the Commissioner against such tax/valuation is
disposed of.
Herein, Appeal against the annual letting value was disposed of by the Commissioner on 26th June, 2000 and Bill, Exhibit-19 was issued on 19th
October, 2000. Therefore, cause of action for filing appeal arose when bill, Exhibit-19 was served upon. However, appeal under Section 406 was filed
on 9th August, 2001 i.e. after raising the demand bill for the Assessment year 2001. Admittedly, in the year 2001, there was no revision in the annual
letting value. The petitioners herein had preferred an Appeal on 9th August, 2001 which was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under
Section 407 read with Section 406 of the Act. Both the Courts below therefore correctly held that the Appeal was barred by limitation. I do not see
any error committed by the Courts below. Hence, there is no interference called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.