AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Party/parties are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
The short argument placed by Mr.Poddar, learned Senior Counsel centres around the point that the order of the Hearing officer (for short, HO) is erroneous both in facts and in law, since such order has not taken into consideration that by it judgment reported in (1997) 140 CTR Cal 569 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Satya Co. Ltd.), the Hon''ble Court has, according to Mr.Poddar, settled the point while determining the rate of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 1961 Act) more specifically Section 23(1)(a) thereof, of the rate at which the annual valuation of a property is to be determined. Mr.Poddar argues that while so deciding, the Hon''ble Court took judicial notice of Section 168 of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1951, which is pari materia with Section 174 of the KMC Act, 1980.
Therefore, learned Senior Counsel argues that the HO misapplied himself to the law on the point by interpreting the assessment of valuation in a manner not contemplated by the law settled appropo (1997) 140 CTR Cal 569 (supra).
Arguing on behalf of the respondents/KMC, Mr.Banerjee, learned Counsel, submits that the decision in (1997) 140 CTR Cal 569 (supra) is based on a principle of taxation under the Income Tax Act and, cannot have any bearing to the assessment of an annual valuation under the municipal law.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves protection at the interim stage considering the prima facie case made out on the strength of the authority as reported in (1997) 140 CTR Cal 569 (supra). At this stage, this Court is of the view that the principles connected to both the law surrounding Section 23(1)(a) of the 1961 Act and the law relating to annual valuation have been dealt with in the Calcutta decision.
Mr.Banerjee is, therefore, permitted to place the stand of the KMC on affidavit within a period of three weeks from date. The petitioner shall be entitled to file a reply affidavit within two weeks thereafter.
The matter is made returnable under the heading ''For Orders'' in the Monthly Combined List of March, 2018.
Till the end of March, 2018 or, until further order/orders whichever is earlier, there shall be interim orders in terms of prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. The interim order/orders shall not, however, act as a restraint upon the parties to respectively pay and, to realise, the actual rate excluding the interest on security deposit, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.