9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the building, but, had nowhere decided the objection of the petitioners with regard to the imposition of house tax - the revenue while issuing notice dated 13.8.2001 had invited the assessee to file objection to the annual value as well as to the proposed house tax - the annual value has been decided by the revenue, the objection relating to house tax has not been decided - the bill raised by the revenue is without any authority of law and is quashed – Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Misc Writ Petition (Tax) No. 234 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2014 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,JJ. ORDER (Per: Tarun Agarwala,J.) The petitioner No.2 is a charitable society registered under the Societies Regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.11.2003 and soon thereafter reminders were given by the petitioners to settle the matter and decide the tax assessment. Inspite of these objections being filed, the respondent did not take any decision and continued to send the assessment bills for the subsequent assessment years. Eventually, the petitioners received a house tax bill dated 4.1.2009 for ₹ 1,45,59,849/- for the period 2008-09, which also included the arrears and interest from 2001. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the issuance of the said bill, have filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit, the respondents Nagar Nigam contended that every property is required to be assessed and that the annual value has to be determined under Sections 173/174 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to pay house tax. In this regard we find that the petitioners have made several objections, which has remained pending. The contention of the respondents that they have decided the objections by their order dated 17.11.2003, is patently erroneous. From a perusal of Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit, it is apparently clear, that the respondents had only determined the annual value of the building, but, had nowhere decided the objection of the petitioners with regard to the imposition of house tax. We also find that the respondents while issuing notice dated 13.8.2001 had invited the petitioners to file objection to the annual value as well as to the proposed house tax. The Court finds that whereas the annual value has been decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
