Pure Drinks Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and The Special Tahsildar

Janarthanam, J.—M/s. Pure Drinks (Calcutta) Ltd., Guindy. Madras-32. (Petitioner), it is said, is the owner of the property of 446 grounds

and 938 square feet in Block No. 9. Mam-balam-Guindy Taluk, Madras City, known as ''Ambrosia''. It has hitherto been assessed to urban land

tax on the basis of the market value of the ground as on 1-7-1971 and on such basis, tax effect was to the tune of Rs. 84,493-30 per fasli. The

Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (for short the Act'') had been amended in 1991 requiring to take into account the market value as on 1-7-

1981. Subsequent to the amendment, it is said, no return had been filed by it. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, T.

Nagar, Madras-24 (first Respondent) issued a notice dated 8-2-1993 in Form 4-C requiring it to lodge before him, within 15 days from the date

of service of the said notice, a statement in writing of its objections, if any, to assessment of its holding of urban land at the market value per ground

at Rs. 1,04,500 under the provisions of Amendment Act, 1991. The notice further indicated a proposal to impose penalty not exceeding half of the

amount of urban land tax for its failure to file return as per the relevant provisions of the Act and in case no sufficient explanation is forthcoming on

or before 26-2-1993, on which date enquiry, if necessary, would be held, it was likely to result in the confirmation of the said proposal.

To the said notice, its Chief Accountant appeared for enquiry, gave statement and produced records. The first Respondent, on consideration of

the materials, was pleased to fix the market value at Rs. 1,04,500 per ground as on 1-7-1981 for the purpose of assessment under Sections 11(2)

and 11(3) read with Sections 5(d) and 40(A) of the Act as amended in 1991. The first Respondent calculated the urban land tax at 2% of the

market value, as determined by him: but, however restricted it to Rs. 4,22,472 representing five times the value of urban land tax on the same

taxable extent per fasli as on 1-7-1975. as per the amended provisions, with effect from fasli 1401 onwards. Penalty of Rs. 25000 had also been

imposed, as a consequence of its failure to submit its return, as per the provisions of the Act.

The Special Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk. Madras-78 (second respondent) issued a notice dated 28-10-1993 demanding payment of

Rs. 12,67,416-60 less Rs. 1,67,089.00 already paid, amounting to a net outstanding of Rs. 11,00,327 within 15 days from the date of receipt of

the said notice. The demand so made had not been complied with and consequently, a demand in letter form dated 25-11-1993 had been issued

requiring it to pay the arrears of tax within three days from the date of receipt thereof. The Petitioner aggrieved, by the said notice, came forward

with the present action praying for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same and direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner

to discharge the tax liability in easy instalments as it is in dire financial crisis.

The Petitioner also filed W.M.P. No. 33156 of 1993 praying for stay of operation of the notice impugned, pending disposal of the writ petition.

When the writ petition, along with W.M.P. came up for admission, this Court directed Mr. T. Ayyasamy, learned Government Advocate

(''Taxes) to take notice on behalf of the Respondents and he accordingly did so. Arguments of respective Learned Counsel were heard.

There is no pale of controversy that any assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax u/s 10 of Section 11 is

appealable to the Tribunal under salient provisions adumbrated u/s 20 of the Act. Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 20 specifically prescribes

that no appeal shall lie under Clause (a) or (b) of the said Sub-section, unless the urban land tax levied has been paid before the appeal is filed.

In the case on hand; no appeal to the Tribunal had been preferred, inasmuch as the Petitioner is not aggrieved by the assessment order made

and this aspect of the, matter is. getting revealed by the specific averment made by him in paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ

petition, which is reflected as below:

The Petitioner respectively states that since the Petitioner is not contesting the assessment order on merits in as much as the enhanced value would

amount to 5 times -what was being originally paid in 1975, the Petitioner has been advised not to file any appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

In such state of affairs, it goes with- out saying that the assessment that has been made by the first Respondent has become final. Nothing had

been contemplated under the salient provisions adumbrated under the Act as to the issuance of a notice of demand requiring the Assessee to pay

the tax assessed under the Act, only after such assessment has become final. But. on the contrary, specific provisions had been made, in the shape

of Section 14 to demand urban land tax due, after the determination of the market value and of the urban land tax u/s 10 or 11, by the issuance of

notice requiring the Assessee to pay the same within 15 days from the date of service of notice. When the urban land tax payable by such an

Assessee is not paid within the expiration of the period specified in the notice, the urban land tax shall be recovered from the Assessee as arrears

of land revenue, as had been provided for by Sub-section (3) of Section 14. The question of stoppage of the collection of such tax will not at all

arise for consideration even in the case of an appeal being filed and as already stated, payment of tax is a condition precedent for the entertainment

of the appeal. Further, no provision is available even for stay of collection of such tax by the Appellate Authority, such being the legislative intent,

expressed by the salient provisions as aforesaid, this Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot at ail be

expected to give a go-by to the law of the land on the ground of hardships that may be caused to the Assessee, like the Petitioner, in case, it is

asked to pay the entirety of the tax. as now demanded in one lump sum. Pertinent it is to remember at this juncture the well-settled position of law

that in tax matters there cannot be any emotive appeal or equitable consideration, but a bounden duty is cast upon the Court to give effect to the

legislative intent, as expressed by express and explicit provisions adumbrated under the enactment.

As stated earlier, a clear 15 days notice had been given demanding the urban land tax due from the Petitioner and despite that, the same had not

been wiped out. Even then, the authorities did not at all resort to initiation of revenue recovery proceedings. But what had been done was, again a

notice had been issued, giving them further time for discharging the tax burden and while doing so, the Petitioner had been intimated that if it is

unable to comply with the demand so made in the subsequent notice the authorities would be constrained to take distraint proceedings for recovery

of arrears of the urban land tax due. The demand as now made cannot at all be stated to be not in conformity with the provisions of law.

For the reasons above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed even at the admission stage and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, W.M.P is also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances.