Calcutta High Court: In a petition assailing the order dated 18-05-2023, wherein a notice of demand dated 05-04-2014, raised by the Municipality, towards the payment of arrear property tax with surcharge and interest was modified by the Single Judge directing waiver of 50 percent of the interest amount, the Division Bench of Joymala Bagchi* and Gaurang Kanth, JJ. upheld the impugned order while stating that no interference was required since the Board of Councilors had the discretion to reduce the amount of the interest charged as per the law.
Background
The appellant was one of the owners of premises no. 1, Kailash Chandra Singha Lane, Bally, Howrah. In 1998, the property tax of the premises was fixed at Rs. 165/- per quarter. The appellant contended that he had regularly paid the property tax at the said rate. In 2004-05, the property tax was enhanced to Rs. 1115/- per quarter.
The impugned notice of demand for arrear tax of years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and current tax up to the fourth quarter of 2014-15 with surcharge and interest was raised upon him for which he made representations before the municipal authorities to permit him to pay the arrear tax in installments.
The Municipality declined this prayer and, the appellant approached the Court wherein the notice of demand was upheld but 50 percent of the interest demanded from the appellant was waived. In the present petition, this order was assailed by both the appellant as well as the Municipality.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the appellant claimed that no bills were raised upon him claiming enhanced property tax for the arrear period but neither did he make out such a case in the representation nor did he do so in the pleadings in the petition.
The Court stated that it appeared that the appellant had raised the issue of non-service of the bills belatedly at the appellate stage to avoid his liability and that he could not be permitted to do so.
Further, the Court opined that the plea of the appellant stating that the bills claiming enhanced property tax had not been raised, was unfounded and that the appellant should not have been permitted to raise it at the appellate stage.
Regarding the prayer of the Municipality that the waiver of 50 percent of the interest demanded on the arrear tax, the Court noted that the interest had been charged at the highest rate, and as per law, the Board of Councilors had the discretion to reduce the amount.
Thus, while upholding the impugned order, the Court stated that the waiver of 50 percent of the interest did not call for interference.
The Court, further, directed the Municipality to raise a notice of demand upon the appellant to pay an amount fixed by the Single Judge within seven days, and the appellant was directed to pay the same within a fortnight failing which, the amount would have an additional interest of 10 percent till the amount is realized.
[Saila Ghosh v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6255, Decided on 14-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by Justice Joymala Bagchi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant — Advocate Sandeep Ghosh, Advocate Partha Sarkar
For Defendants — AGP Amal Kr. Sen, Advocate Lalmohan Basu, Advocate Sandipan Banerjee, Advocate Ankit Sureka, Advocate Sobhan Majumder, Advocate Ayan Banerjee, Advocate Debarsree Dhamali.