AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Non compliance of the order dated 17-2-2017 passed in SBCWP No.13752/2015 has been alleged in this petition. The sum and substance of the
aforesaid order was that the demand notice dated 13-7-2015 issued against the petitioner on account of Urban Development Tax (hereafter `the tax')
for the period 2007-08 to 2015-16 was quashed and set aside and the respondent Jaipur Municipal Corporation (hereafter `the JMC') was required to
pass fresh assessment order after getting a self declaration from the petitioner with regard to the due tax in issue.
The case of the petitioner is that, depsite the order dated 17-2-2017 passed by this court, the very same amount of tax as udner the demand notice
dated 13-7-2015 which was quashed and set aside, was expropriated from the petitioner under coercion. Mr. Anant Kasliwal submits that such an
expropriation of the purported tax due earlier quashed by this court on 17-2-2017 constitutes gross contempt of order of this court and reduces the
administration of justice to a mockery. He prayed for directions to purge the contempt and punishment to the contemnor.
Reply to contempt petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the petitioner failed to submit his self declaration as was mandated by this court
vide its order dated 17-2-2017. In the circumstances the petitioner was required by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, who was the assessing
authority, to submit the requisite self declaration as directed by this court and appear before the Assessing authority, but it failed to so do. Order of
assessment was passed on 16-3-2018, where the tax due was again assessed as earlier was and demanded by notice dated 13-7-2015.
The petitioner was bound to pay the tax so assessed. He thus deposited it voluntarily. No contempt as alleged is thus made out. And instead of the
appellate remedy being availed, resort to this contempt petition has been wrongly made.
Heard. Considered.
There are contesting claims with regard to the petitioner having, following this court's order dated 17-2-2017, submitted its self declaration on tax due.
While the petitioner asserts it did and supports the contention with annexures to the contempt petition, the respondents are in denial, though bare. The
fact however remains that demand notice dated 13-7-2015 was quashed and set aside by this court vide order dated 17-2-2017 as it was issued
without ascertaing the commercial use of the industrial plot allotted by RIICO to the petitioner. Admittedly Urban Development tax is leviable inter alia
on commercial property and not on industrial. On a query to counsel for respondent contemnors as to whether inspection of the petitioner's property
was conducted by JMC's officers subsequent to the court's order dated 17-2-2017 in SBCWP No.13752/2015 and before passing the purported
assessment order dated 16-3-2018, nothing has been brought on record to establish that inspection of petitioner's property with regard to the extent of
commercial use of the industrial plot allotted to the petitioner was indeed done. Or even the order of conversion passed on 31-3-2006 by RIICO to an
extent of 1430 sq. meters in respect of the industrial plot first allotted by RIICO considered. The purported order of assessment passed on 16-3-2018
on account of due urban development tax also was not servedâ€"to the court's satisfactionâ€"on the petitioner. Nothing concrete and inspiring
confidence has been brought to the court's notice in this regard.
From the aforesaid facts, it appears that the contemnor Kavita Chaudhary, Deputy Commissioner Vidhyadhar Nagar Zone, JMC Jaipur overstepped
her jurisdiction and acted in gross contravention of this court's order dated 17-2-2017, in passing the purported order of assessment dated 16-3-2018
qua the petitioner's liability regarding urban development tax for the period 2007-08 to 2015-16. She has sought to overreach this court's order dated
17-2-2017 by misuse of her power. Aside of the order of assessment dated 16-3-2018 thus being void having been passed contrary to this court's
direction dated 17-2-2017 in SBCWP No.13752/2015, it constitutes clear contempt of court. The court however does not wish to overlook the fact that
the respondent contemnor Kavita Chaudhary is a young lady officer and appears to have been under implied pressure of her superiors to reach
revenue recovery targets at the end of Financial Year 2017-18 ending March 31, 2018. Hence on the question of visiting her with punishment under
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, a fine of Rs.1000/- would suffice and she will also be well advised not to be casual about the court's order and strictly
comply with the same in future. And even where in her ""wisdom"" she finds lack of clarity with regard to any of the court's order she should move an
application for clarification of the order, when the occasion arises.
The Chief Executive Officer JMC Jaipur Mr. Ravi Jain, was required by the court in the course of hearing of this petition to be present in person. This
in view of the fact that for purging contempt of the court's order dated 17-2-2017, the authority of the respondent contemnor Kavita Chaudhary, a
Deputy Commissioner JMC would not suffice. On the issue of the contempt of the court's order dated 17-2-2017 being purged, Mr. Ravi Jain has very
fairly submitted that the amounts the petitioner was made to deposit apparently under coercion on account of UD tax for the years 2007-08 to 2015-16
would be refunded to it within seven working days from today. He however submitted that the JMC be allowed to re-assess the due urban
development tax against the petitioner's property for the period 2007-08 to 2018 and onwards after physical inspection of the premises in issue and to
issue fresh demand notice to the petitioner after due opportunity of hearing to it. And thereafter recover the due tax from the petitioner with interest as
law may permit.
Mr. Anant Kasliwal does not and cannot have any objection to the liberty to re-assess the tax as sought. Resultantly the contempt petition stands
disposed of as under:-
(1) The Deputy Commissioner Ms. Kavita Chaudhary is held in contempt of the court's order dated 17-2-2017 in passing the purported order of
assessment on account of Urban Development Tax against the petitioner for FY 2007-08 to 2014-15 on 16-3-2018 without first ascertaining the extent
of commercial use/ conversion of the plot in issue as directed by this court under its order dated 17-2-2017 and instead reframing the demand for tax
exactly as earlier determined. Albeit such demand towards UD tax was quashed by this court under its order dated 17-2-2017. Her action entailed the
clear effect of willfully disobeying the court's order dated 17-2-2017. Being held in contempt Ms. Kavita Chaudhary, Dy. Commissioner JMC Jaipur is
held liable to a fine of Rs.1000/-.
(2) The amount of tax which the petitioner was made to deposite towards UD tax for the years 2007-08 to 2015-16, on an assessment dated 16-3-
2018 contrary to the court's directions issued on 17-2-2017, is held to be void and would be refunded to the petitioner within seven working days from
today.
(3) The JMC would be free to re-assess the urban development tax due from the petitioner by inspection of its property in issue and while so doing
also consider the petitioner's conversion order dated 31-3-2006 passed by RIICO whereby a parcel of the industrial plot first allotted, was converted to
commercial use to an extent of 1430 sq. meters.
(4) Subsequent to inspection of petitioner's property and notice of hearing to the petitioner, the JMC would be free to pass a fresh assessment order of
UD tax due from the petitioner for the period 2007-08 to 2018 and thereafter from time to time as due.
(5) The petitioner would cooperate in the re-assessment proceedings and not seek more than one adjournment of upto seven days.
(6) The re-assessment proceedings will be completed within forty five days from today.
(7) If aggrieved of the assessment order/ demand notice on account of UD tax the petitioner would be free to take its remedies thereagainst in
accordance with law.
The contemp petition stands disposed of accordingly.