2003 (7) TMI 688 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the mode of giving public notice of the assessment list is mandatory or directory? Whether the mode of publication prescribed in section 149(1) as opposed to publication itself, was mandatory and hold that the publication in the newspapers was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the sub- section?

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the provisions of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 in the preparation of valuation and assessment lists.
2. Mode of publication of the assessment list under Section 149(1) of the Act.
3. Preparation of assessment lists in a piecemeal manner.
4. Recovery of tax based on the assessment list before the disposal of objections under Section 150.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Provisions of the Act:
The appellants argued that the Corporation did not follow the provisions of Sections 133, 134, and 137 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 in preparing the valuation and assessment lists. The High Court rejected this submission, stating that the steps were taken as per the 1993 Rules, which were upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar V. S.K.P. Sinha. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, noting that the valuations and assessments were prepared in accordance with the 1993 Rules and the notifications issued thereunder.

2. Mode of Publication of the Assessment List:
The appellants contended that the mode of publication prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act was mandatory. The High Court accepted this contention but held that since the appellants received individual notices under Section 149(2) and filed applications for review under Section 150, the irregularity in publication was not consequential. The Supreme Court clarified that while the requirement for public notice under Section 149(1) is mandatory, the specified mode of publication ("by beat of drum and by placards") is directory. The Court held that publication in newspapers was a substantial compliance with the requirement, given the context and the effectiveness of the notice.

3. Preparation of Assessment Lists in a Piecemeal Manner:
The appellants argued that the assessment list could not be prepared in a piecemeal manner for different properties. The High Court did not accept this submission, noting that Section 149(1) allows for area-wise assessments and the Corporation's explanation of administrative difficulties. The Supreme Court agreed, citing the proviso to Section 138(1) and the flexibility in the language of Section 149(1), which permits assessments for parts of Patna.

4. Recovery of Tax Before Disposal of Objections:
The appellants claimed that the new rate of tax could only take effect after the objections under Section 150 were decided. The High Court did not explicitly address this submission but directed the disposal of objections within three months. The Supreme Court held that the assessment list, once prepared and published, remains valid and effective until revised or amended under Sections 151 or 152. Therefore, the Corporation can recover taxes based on the assessment list pending the disposal of objections. The Court emphasized that merely filing an objection does not halt the tax realization process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision with different reasoning. The Court upheld the validity of the 1993 Rules and the notifications, confirmed the substantial compliance with the publication requirement, and allowed the recovery of taxes based on the assessment list pending the resolution of objections. The appellants' objections were directed to be disposed of within a specified timeframe.

← Previous Next →