Ganga Prasad vs Municipal Commissioner

Wort, J.—The plaintiff, who is the appellant before this Court, brought an action in the Court of the Munsif of Buxar, asking for a declaration that an assessment made upon him under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act was ultra vires. The amount of the assessment was Rs. 224. It is unnecessary to refer to the matter excepting to state the fact that the plaintiff brought a suit on an earlier occasion claiming that an assessment made with regard to a certain year, being at the rate of Rs. 224, was ultra vires, and, on the matter coming before this Court, the assessment was reduced to Rs. 112. But that matter, in my judgment, has nothing to do with this litigation. In this case, as I have already stated, the assessment has been made again at the rate of Rs. 224. The only fact which is relevant in this connexion is that the appellant occupies on his own showing at least two holdings within the Municipality in respect of which he has been assessed.

Now the first contention raised by Mr. Jayaswal on behalf of the appellant is that this being a personal assessment under Sub-clause (a), Sub-section (1), Section 82, the result is that by reason of Section 92 of the Act the maximum allowable by the Act is Rs. 120, and, therefore, the assessment should be reduced accordingly. Section 92 provides:

The amount assessed upon any person in respect of the occupation of any holding for the purpose of the tax on persons shall not be more than Rs. 120 per annum.

It is quite clear that that section really does not bear the interpretation which is placed upon it or sought to be placed upon it by Mr. Jayaswal. The expression used in the section is "in respect of the occupation of any holding;" that is to say, that the maximum in regard to each holding shall not be more than Rs. 120.

The next contention is that the authorities should have stated the amount of the assessment against each holding in respect to which an assessment has been made and not stated a lump sum as in this case.

For the purpose of this argument Mr. Jayaswal refers us to Section 89 which provides that after it has been determined a tax shall be imposed on persons according to their circumstances and property within the Municipality and an assessment list shall be prepared which shall contain amongst the particulars the number of the holding on the register, the road in which it is situated, and in Sub-clause (e) the amount of the annual assessment.

It is contended that the Legislature in using the expression "the amount of the annual assessment" in Sub-clause (e) meant the amount of the annual assessment in respect of each holding. In my judgment that contention cannot be upheld. It appears that what has happened in this case is that a notice has been prepared u/s 89; the descriptions of the holdings have been set out, and that instead of an assessment against each of the holdings there has been a lump sum assessment, if I may call it such, stated in the particulars and given at the end, of Rs. 224.

Now Section 94 is referred to and it is argued that this method which has been adopted by the district authorities leads to the assessee being prejudiced in the matter. Section 94 provides that the local authorities may reduce the assessment if any person mentioned in the assessment has, at any time, after the publication thereof, ceased to occupy any holding in respect of the occupation of which he has been assessed.

It is quite clear, as I have already stated, that this a personal assessment; it is not an assessment based on the annual value of the property as under Sub-clause (a), Sub-section (1), Section 82. Had that been the method adopted in the Dumraon Municipality, then I should have agreed with the argument of Mr. Jayaswal that an assessee would have been prejudiced by the method which is adopted in this case. It is quite clear, therefore, that on the general scheme of the Act the local authorities were entitled, if the circumstances of the assessee warranted it, in assessing any holding, whatever its character, at the maximum amount of Rs. 120 u/s 92. They are at liberty, it is to be noted u/s 14, to revise the assessment, that is to say, as far as I can see, without definitely deciding the question, they may reduce the assessment with regard to a holding no longer in occupation of the assessee by such amount as they think just and equitable in the circumstances. It is quite clear, therefore, that so far as this matter is concerned it is a mere question of arithmetic. To repeat myself, if the circumstances of the assessee warranted, they can assess him at the maximum amount of Rs. 120, in respect of each holding which he occupies'' within the Municipality. In my opinion. therefore, the local authorities were well within their powers granted to them by the Act of stating in the particulars u/s 89 the total amount of the assessment at which they had arrived with regard to this appellant in this case.

In my judgment the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is right and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Das, J.

I agree.