GOLD STAR BATTERY LTD THROUGH ALPESHKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI HIRPARA vs. JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18000 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7181 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2639 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2626 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2627 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18628 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18630 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18422 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18427 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18429 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18430 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18431 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18432 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18433 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18434 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18435 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18436 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18437 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18439 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18440 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18441 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18442 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18443 of 2018 With Page 1 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18445 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18446 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18428 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18449 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18451 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18453 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18456 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18458 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18462 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18465 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18473 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18477 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18483 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18489 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18493 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18498 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18507 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18512 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18517 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18520 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18523 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18527 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18528 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18461 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18515 of 2018 Page 2 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18460 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18518 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18487 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18463 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18492 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18466 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18496 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18470 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18501 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18475 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18504 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18508 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18480 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18511 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18484 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18521 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18472 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18525 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18510 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18478 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18514 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18482 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18529 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18486 of 2018 With Page 3 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18530 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18490 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18531 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18495 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18532 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18499 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18533 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18505 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18534 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18535 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18516 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18519 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18522 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18524 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18526 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18494 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18502 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18537 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18506 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18464 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18509 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18468 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18471 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18513 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18474 of 2018 Page 4 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18491 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18488 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18485 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18481 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18479 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19425 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19426 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19428 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19429 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20662 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20664 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO

============================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? NO ============================================= VIJAYAN RAJAMANICKA NADAR PAGALAM Versus JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 other(s) Page 5 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT ============================================= Appearance: MR SURESH N SHELAT, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR AXIT J TANNA(9474) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 BANSI M KARIA(9320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 NISHITH P ACHARYA(9308) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO

Date : 15/07/2019

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. As the issue raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. 2. The writ applications have been preferred by the respective writ applicant questioning the legality and validity of the demand made by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation towards the property tax by issue of bills for the requisite amount. All the writ applicants are residents of Jamnagar and the areas situated on the outskirts of Jamnagar falling within the jurisdiction of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018 was heard as the lead matter. In such circumstances, the Special Civil Application No.18000 Page 6 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT of 2018 is treated as the lead matter. The disposal of the Special Civil Application No.18000 of 2018 shall govern the disposal of all the connected writ applications. 4. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs : “A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition, and B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction quashing and setting aside tax bill dated 7.7.2018 at ANNEXURE-B issued by the Respondent No.2 - Tax Officer C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the respondent Corporation from effecting any recovery pursuant to bill dated 07.07.2018 at ANNEXURE-B issued by the Respondent No.2 – Tax Officer D. Ad-interim reliefs in terms of Para-C may kindly be granted; E. Any other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice;” Page 7 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 5. The case of the writ applicant in his own words, as stated in the writ application, is as under : “2. The petitioner is at present resident of area within the Municipal Corporation of Jamnagar. The petitioner is having his office at Plot No., Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Hapa. Office of the petitioner was located prior to 2013 within Nagarsim Limits of Jamnagar. By notification issued under the Gujarat Provisional Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation Act’ for short) the said Hapa and other area / villages have been included within larger urban area of Municipal Corporation, Jamnagar. The said notification though issued in the year 2006 was effected and enforced with effect from dated 04.10.2013. The petitioner has been paying cess to the concerned authority of NagarSim of Jamnagar for the property used by him at Hapa till 2019. 3. The petitioner received bill dated 7.7.2018 from the respondent No.2 Tax Officer, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation for recovery of Rs.1,33,668/-. The said bill contains recovery of arrears of general taxes, surcharge, conservancy and solid waste connection charges from the year 31.3.2006 till date. The bill also contains recovery from the period March-April 2018- 19.” 5.1 The grounds of challenge as raised in the writ application are as under : Page 8 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT “4. The petitioner submits that recovery sought for from the petitioner from the year 31.3.2016 till date is wholly unauthorized and ultra vires the provisions of Gujarat Corporation Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is obliged to challenge the said recovery being illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Act on the following amongst other grounds :- 4.1 The petitioner submits that no recovery could have been affected for the general taxes / property taxes from the year 31.03.2006 under the provisions of the Corporation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner submits that assessment and levy in respect of period from 31.03.2006 till 2018 was required to be completed in every official year from 2006 ending 31.03.2018. 4.2 It is settled position of law that assessment must be completed before the close of the official year. It is held that the scheme of the Corporation Act is that the assessment list in order to be valid must be authenticated before the expiry of the official year and if it is not, the assessment list is void and inoperative, does not give rise to liability to pay the tax. (Municipal Corporation of City of Humbli vs. Subha Rao Hanumantharao Prayag and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1398 and in the case of Anant Mills Co. Ltd., vs. Municipal Corporation for the City of Ahmedabad XIII (2) GLH 897). 4.3 The petitioner submits that the respondent Corporation before the issuance of the bills for the year Page 9 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 2018 has not given opportunity to the assessee to lodge complaints against the determination of assessment as required under the Rules. 4.4 The petitioner submits that provisions of the Rules 21A and 21B are not attracted in the facts of the present case. The petitioner was paying cess tax to the appropriate authority. No bills have been issued prior to the present bill dated 7.7.2018. 4.5 The petitioner submits that under the provisions of the Constitution and Corporation Act no recovery could be effected retrospectively by any legislative measure. 4.6 The petitioner further submits that even the calculation made for the year 2018 is wholly illegal as it has invited factor L4 instead of L5. For the purpose of computing assessment zoning has been improperly identified and rates used are incorrect leads to total erroneous, unjustified assessment of the tax. 5. The petitioner submits that there is no other alternative efficacious relief in view of the unauthorized issuance of the bill which is invalid and void in the eye of law. 6. The petitioner submits that it is just and proper case where this Hon’ble Court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and stay recovery pursuance to the said bill by granting interim relief to such extent.” Page 10 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT Submissions on behalf of the writ applicant : 6. Mr. S.N. Shelat, the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the demand raised by the corporation towards property tax by issue of the tax bill dated 07.07.2018 is contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short “the Act, 1949”) and the Taxation Rules framed therein (for short “the Rules, 1949”). 6.1 The submissions of Mr. Shelat may be summarized as under : “1. The petitioners are having their office premises at Hapa Industrial Estate opposite Jalaram Mandir, Hapa. The limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation were altered by Notification dated 04.10.2013 and survey numbers of Hapa Village and other survey numbers were included within the corporate limits of Jamnagar vide Notification dated 04.10.2013. 2. The petitioners were served with property tax bill which is annexed at ANNEXURE-A of the submission for the period with effect from 31.03.2006 till date. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.01 in SCA 18000 of 2018, it is clarified at page 53 that they arrears of Rs.1,12,537/- (page 53) demanded are for the period between October 2013 to Page 11 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 31.03.2018. The said bill has never been served upon the petitioners. The bill that is served is of 07.07.2018 (page 31) in SCA 18000 of 2018. 4. The petitioners have challenged the recovery of property tax pursuant to bills annexed at Annexure – B of all petitions or bill dated 01.03.2018 (page 53 – not served). The petitioners submit that as the said bills have been issued and served upon the petitioners after the expiry of the official year, no recovery could be made by the Municipal Corporation. 5. The scheme of the Taxation Rules 9 to 19 is that to give rise to the liability for the payment of property tax, it has to be authenticated before the expiry of official year. It is submitted that the authentication of the assessment list for the bills of official year from March 2006 / October 2013 is not entered in the assessment book for the said official years respectively. No inspection of the assessment book for such authentication for the respective year is offered to any of the petitioners. 6. The petitioners submit that the respondent Corporation before issuance of bills for the year 2018 has not given any opportunity to the assessee to lodge complaints against the determination of assessment as required under the Rules. 7. The petitioners submit that the provisions of Rules 21A and 21B are not attracted in the facts of the present case. The petitioner was paying property tax to the Hapa Village Panchayat. No bills have been issued Page 12 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT prior to the impugned bills and warrants. 8. The petitioners further submit that even the calculation made for the year 2018 is wholly erroneous and unjustified as it has invited factor L4 instead of L5. For the purpose of computing assessment zoning has been improperly identified and rates used are incorrect leads to total erroneous, unjustified assessment of the tax.” 6.2 Mr. Shelat has placed reliance on the following decisions : “I. The decision recorded in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad vs. Jhaveri Keshavlal Lallubhai [VI GLR 228]. II. L.M. Patel vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation 1995 (1) GCD 751. It is held that under Rule 9, the assessment books are required to be kept containing the entries every official year. III. Anant Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad [XIII (2) GLH 897]. IV. Kanaiya Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assessment and Recovery Officer and anr. [2003 (1) GLH 449]. It is a settled legal position that once the official year has expired, it would not be open for the Commissioner to assess and levy the property tax for that year (paragraph 8.1).” Page 13 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 6.3 For the convenience of this Court, Mr. Shelat provided with the following chart : SR. NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1 Notification of Urban Development Directorate concerning Carpet Rules 08/05/06 2 The area located within the revenue limit of village Hapa 2006-2013 3 Petitioner has paid cess to the concerned authority of NagarSim of Hapa (uptill 2019 in SCA 18000 of 2018) 4 Notification issued under the Gujarat Provisional Municipal Corporation Act including the said area within the larger urban area of Municipal corporation, Jamnagar 04/10/13 5 Bills and subsequent warrants issued effecting the recovery of arrears of general taxes, surcharges, conservancy and solid waste connection charges from 31.03.2006. the bill also contains recovery for the period March-April, 2018-19 2018 Submissions on behalf of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation : 7. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently submitted that the bill raised by the Corporation towards the property tax is absolutely in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1949. Mr. Soparkar submitted that Section 127 of the Act, 1949 falling within the Chapter XI is with regard to the taxes to be imposed under the Act. The argument is that Section 127 does not prescribe any particular procedure or any particular time limit. The Page 14 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT rules on which reliance is sought to be placed on behalf of the writ applicant could be said to be subservient to the main provisions of the Act. It is submitted that there is no substantive provision in the Act which prohibits raising on the bill towards the property tax beyond the official year. Mr. Soparkar placed reliance on Rule 21B to explain the delay. The learned senior counsel submitted that the writ applicant should not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. It was pointed out that, on one hand, the writ applicant kept on negotiating with the Corporation and on the other hand, he is now trying to take benefit of the delay in issue of the tax bill. Mr. Soparkar vehemently submitted that such a writ applicant is not entitled to seek any equitable relief from this Court. Mr. Soparkar further submitted that after having availed all the basic civic amenities provided by the Corporation, the writ applicant cannot turn around and say that he is not liable to pay any property tax. 7.1 Mr. Soparkar also pointed out that excluding the writ applicants before this Court all other citizens residing within the limits of the Corporation have paid the tax without any protest or any objection. Mr. Soparkar also placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in- Page 15 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT reply filed on behalf of the respondent – Corporation, duly affirmed by one Shri Govindbhai Jethabhai Nandaniya, Tax Officer, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, Jamnagar. The averments are as follows : “3. The respondent No.2 submits that the property tax is assessed, levied and collected on the basis of carpet area pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 8th May, 2006 issued by the Government of Gujarat through its Urban Development and Urban Housing Development. The respondent No.2 submits that property tax and other taxes are already being collected from Industrial Units of G.I.D.C. Phase-I Estate situated in the heart of the City of Jamnagar since 1981. It is submitted that similarly such taxes are also levied and collected from the industrial units of M.P. Shah Udyognagar. It is pertinent to note that there are 2080 industrial units in G.I.D.C. Phase-I while 304 units in M.P. Shah Udyognagar. It is pertinent to note that the assessees of G.I.D.C. Phase-I Estate are paying an amount of Rs.1,50,96,995/- towards taxes while the assessees of M.P. Shah Udyognagar are paying an amount of Rs.31,81,616/- towards taxes approximately per year. The respondent No.2 submits that the Government of Gujarat through its Urban Development and Urban Housing Department issued a Notification dated 4th October, 2013 through which various areas of the city of Jamnagar are brought within the territorial jurisdiction of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and accordingly at present the total area of the city of Jamnagar is 125 Sq.Mtrs. Page 16 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 4. The respondent No.2 submits that accordingly the areas G.I.D.C. Phase-II and G.I.D.C. Phase-III are also included in the limits of Municipal Corporation of Jamnagar. It is further stated that even certain areas of Village Bedi are also brought within the limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation through a notification published in February, 2014. 5. The respondent No.2 submits that Special Civil Application No.7181 of 2018 is preferred by G.I.D.C. Plot and Shed Holders Association and other against the State of Gujarat, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and other with regard to the assessment and issuance of property tax bills and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. 6. The respondent submits that Shree Jamnagar Sahakari Udyog Sangh Limited is the owner of various revenue survey numbers of Village Dhuvav and the land occupied by it is subdivided into sub-plots and are allotted to its members for establishment of industries. It is submitted that the Government of Gujarat through its Urban Development and ?Urban Housing Department has issued a notification dated 4th October, 2013 through which various revenue survey numbers of Village Dhuvav are brought within the territorial limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and copy of the notification is annexed as Annexure-A. The respondent No.2 submits that accordingly the area in question is now within the administrative jurisdiction of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. Page 17 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 7. The respondent no.2 submits that Shree Jamnagar Sahakari Udyog Sangh Limited has divided its land into 141 plots meant for industrial purpose and on subdivision thereof, at present, there are 175 properties. It is stated that 60 plots are yet open while there are industries on 115 plots. It is further stated that the petitioner herein is the owner and in possession of the plot No.3 and has put up construction thereon for industrial purpose and is running his industry thereon. 8. The respondent No.2 submits that before the notification dated 4th October, 2013, the area in question was within the territorial limits of Jamnagar Area Development Authority. It is submitted that the entire area is known as HAPA Industrial Area and Jamnagar Area Development Authority has spent an approximate amount of Rs.7.00 crores for laying asphalt roads in the said area. It is pertinent to note that though the said area was not within the limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, it has spent Rs.18.00 crores in the year 2005 to provide water supply facilities to the industries as well as residences of the area. It is submitted that subsequently further amount of Rs.2.00 crores is spent on water supply schemes for the area though it was not within the limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. 9. The respondent No.2 submits that subsequent to the notification dated 04.10.2013, administration of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has spent an approximate amount of Rs.75,17,81,000/- for providing infrastructure facilities like water supplies, roads, civil Page 18 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT works, housing for economic weaker section, underground drainage system, garbage collection system as well as street lights, etc. In other words, the respondent Corporation has undertaken various activities for the development of the area and the benefits are derived by the petitioner as well as the similarly situated other industrial units more particularly street lights, water supply scheme, underground drainage and roads are being provided. 10. The respondent No.2 submits that necessary actions were initiated for levying the property tax and other taxes as per the provisions of Section 127 and relevant provisions of the Act in the year 2014-15. It is submitted that the entire area was surveyed by the technical staff of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. It is further stated that the petitioner herein was issued an individual personal assessment notice through Under Postal Certificate (UPC) and a copy of the notice is annexed at Annexure-B. It is pertinent to note that the said assessment notice was issued under the provisions of Section 15(2) and 20(2) of Chapter 8 of B.P.M.C. Act, 1949. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein though was in personal knowledge of assessment notice, he didn’t file any objection and as such accepted the assessment. The respondent No.2 submits that thereafter a property tax bill was issued on 1st March, 2018 and a copy thereof is annexed as Annexure-C. It is pertinent to note that as the area in question is brought within the limits of Jamnagar through a notification issued in the month of October, 2013 and the petitioner is getting all the civic facilities mentioned herein above, the property tax and other Page 19 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT taxes are assessed for a period commencing from 01.10.2013. It is pertinent to note that part of the property is used for the residential purpose by the staff while rest of the property is used for industrial purpose. 11. The respondent No.2 submits that the total amount of taxes to be collected against the bills in all 175 properties, is of Rs.1,25,77,275/- for a period commencing from 1st October, 2013. It is pertinent to note that some of the plot owners of Shree Jamnagar Sahakari Udyog Sangh Limited have made payment of taxes without any objection. 12. The respondent No.2 submits that some of the plot owners have raised objections against assessment notices and the same were considered by the appellate authority as per the provisions of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and after appropriate decision thereon, property tax bills were issued. It is stated that as stated herein above, the petitioner has not raised any objection. 13. The respondent No.2 submits that there are in all 270 property owners surrounding the plot owners of Shree Jamnagar Sahakari Udyog Sangh Limited. It is pertinent to note that the said assessees are using their properties for residential purposes as well as industrial purposes and they have paid Rs.83,25,047/- towards taxes. 14. The respondent No.2 submits that the Sangh had Page 20 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT approached the General Manager of District Udyog Centre at Jamnagar on the issue of taxes and Memorandum of Understanding in that regard, but the Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Tax), Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has categorically addressed a letter on 27.06.2018 that the same is not possible in view of the resolution passed by the Standing Committee of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation on identical request by G.I.D.C. Plot and Shed Holders Association and a copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure-D. The respondent No.2 submits that as such an alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner herein as well as other assessees under the provisions of Section 406 and 407 of the Act against tax bills, it appears that the said remedy is not availed as appellants before the competent court are liable to pay 75% of the tax liability as per the provisions of the Act. 15. The respondent No.2 submits that the facts narrated herein above make it clear that the contentions of the petitioner, are without any substance. It is pertinent to note that as such a press note was published in the newspapers on the issue of survey of the properties and assessment of taxes of the newly added areas of the city of the Jamnagar and a copy of the said press note dated 18.11.2014 & 28.04.2016 is annexed as Annexure-E. It is submitted that the petitioner and similarly situated other assessees were issued assessment notices through U.P.C. as stated herein above and registers are maintained in that regard and it is humbly pray to Page 21 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT grant the permission to produce the same during the course of hearing in the interest of justice. 16. The respondent No.2 submits that the new system i.e. carpet area base system was introduced under the provisions of Section 141(b), 141(aa) of the G.P.M.C. Act by Jamnagar Municipal Corporation in for the city of Jamnagar. It is pertinent to note that after survey and assessment, an online assessment book is prepared as per the provisions of rule 9 of the Taxation Rules. It is submitted that complete details were made available about the property’s online for public at large and a copy of the online assessment information is annexed as Annexure-F. 17. The respondent No.2 submits that assuming a public notice about the assessment book is not published as per the provisions of Rule 13 and 15(1) of the Taxation Rules, then also it is to be noted that individual notices were issued to all running industrial units holders and residential unit holders through post i.e. under the postal certificate. Copies of said notices along with the delivery register with stamps are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G (colly). 18. In view of the above facts, it is crystal clear that due procedure is followed and more particularly, principles of natural justice are also followed and all the opportunities at all the stages are given to the unit holders / residential unit holders / open plot holders and therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners are without substance. Page 22 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 19. The respondent No.2 submits that as stated herein above, the tax liability has arisen only w.e.f. 01.10.2013 and it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to say that the property tax and other taxes are assessed w.e.f. 31st March, 2006. It is further stated that considering the facts that the area in question is brought within the limits of Municipal Corporation only on 4th October, 2013 and as the administrative procedure was required to be followed and as there was also a shortage of staff, the entire exercise for survey and assessment of the properties of the newly areas were initiated in the year 2016. It is stated that therefore the judgements relied upon by the petitioner, are of no help to him. 20. The respondent No.2 submits that recently even a scheme for rebate on property tax and other taxes for newly added assessees, is also introduced through a resolution dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Standing Committee of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H. It is submitted that thereafter administrative instructions are issued and copies thereof are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I (Colly.). In other words, it is open to the petitioner to take advantage of the said scheme.” 7.2 The Corporation has also filed further Affidavit-in- sur-rejoinder inter alia stating as under : “2. Respondent No.3 most humbly prays that, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation have issued 78302 Page 23 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT Property Tax Bills in the newly merged area of Jamnagar City out of that more than 30000 citizens have paid their tax to the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation in the year of issuance of bills. 3. Respondent No.3 further submits that the total tax payer who have paid their legitimate tax includes the members of the Petitioner’s Association also & it is submitted that out of 2974 tax payers more than 500 tax payer of the Petitioner’s Association have already paid their taxes & as far as Hapa Industrial Estate & others are concerned out of 604 tax payers of the said estate more than 498 tax payer have their taxes. 4. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is submitted that overall nearly 40% tax payer of the newly merged area have paid their tax dues to the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. We submit that citizens are willing paying their dues & fulfilling their responsibility as a citizen of Jamnagar.” 7.3 In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Soparkar, the learned senior counsel prays that there being no merit in this writ application, the same may be rejected. 8. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed by either side, we deem it appropriate to look into few provisions of the Act as well as the Rules : 8.1 Section 2(44) of the Act, 1949 defines the term Page 24 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT “official year“. The same reads as follows : “ ‘official year’ means the year commencing on the first day of April;” 8.2 Section 127 reads as follows : “127. Taxes to be imposed under this Act.- (1) For the purpose of this Act, the Corporation shall impose the following taxes, namely :- [(a) Property taxes either under section 129 or (b) a tax on vehicles, boats and animals. (c) a tax on mobile towers:] [Provided that in the case of a local area constituted to be a City under sub-section (2) of section 3, until the expiry of a period of two years from the appointed day or of such further period not exceeding two years as the State Government] at the request of the Corporation for such City may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if there had been substituted for the words “the Corporation shall impose” the words “the Corporation may impose”.] [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-section (1), in the case of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Rajkot, for a period of two years commencing on the 19th November, 1975, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect, as if with effect on and from the 19th November, 1975 there had been substituted for the words “the corporation shall impose” the words “the Corporation may impose” in the Page 25 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT said sub-section (1).] (2) In addition to the taxes specified in sub-section (1) the Corporation may for the purposes of this Act and subject to the provisions thereof impose any of the following taxes, namely :- [* * * ] [(b) Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 (President’s Act No.11 of 1976) and the rules made thereunder, a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments;] (c) a tax on dogs, [(cc) a tax on entertainments,] (d) a theatre tax (e) a toll on animals and vehicles entering the City; [(f) any other tax which the State Legislature has power under the Constitution to impose in the State. [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or sub-section (2), no tax or toll shall be levied on motor vehicles save as provided in section 20 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 (Bom. LXV of 1958).] (3) The municipal taxes shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules. [(4) Nothing in this section shall authorise the imposition of any tax which the State Legislature has no power to impose in the State under the Constitution.” Page 26 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 8.3 Section 141AA reads as follows : “141AA. Property taxes of what to consist and at what rate leviable.- For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 127, property taxes shall comprise the following taxes which shall, subject to exceptions, limitations and conditions hereinafter provided, be levied on buildings and lands in the City :- (a) a water tax at such percentage of the amount of general tax levied under section 141B as the Corporation shall deem reasonable, for providing water supply for the City; Provided that the Corporation shall, with the previous sanction of the State Government, fix the minimum amount of such tax to be levied and may fix different minima for different classes of properties; Provided further that the minimum amount of such tax to be levied shall,- - (i) in respect of any one separate holding of land or of any one building (not being premises used exclusively for residential purpose) or of any one portion of a building which is let as a separate holding and which is not used exclusively for residential purpose, be not less than five rupees per mensem for any official year; (ii) in respect of any premises used exclusively for residential purpose, be not less than three rupees Page 27 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT per mensem for any official year; (b) a conservancy and sewerage tax at such percentage of the amount of general tax levied under section 141B as will in the opinion of the Corporation suffice to provide for the collection, removal and disposal of all excrementitious and polluted matters from privies, urinals and cess-pools and for efficiently maintaining and repairing the municipal drains constructed or used for the reception or conveyance of such matters : Provided that the Corporation shall, with the previous sanction of the State government, fix the minimum amount of such tax to be levied and may fix different minima for different classes of properties : Provided further that the minimum amount of such tax to be levied in respect of any one separate holding of land or of any one building or of any one portion of a building which is let as a separate holding shall not be less than two rupees per mensem for any official year and that the amount of such tax to be levied in respect of any hotel, club, industrial premises or other large premises may be specifically fixed under section 137 : Provided also that while determining the rate of such tax under section 99 or 150, the Corporation may determine different rates for different classes of properties; (c) a general tax which may be levied in accordance with the provisions of section 141B, if the Corporation so determines on a graduate scale; Page 28 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT (d) betterment charges leviable under Chapter XVI. Explanation.- (i) Where any portion of a building or a land is liable to a higher rate of the general tax, such portion shall be deemed to be a separate property for the purpose of municipal taxation. (ii) The water tax for providing water supply for the City and the conservancy tax for the collection, removal and disposal of all excrementitious and polluted matters form privies, urinals and cess-pools and for efficiently maintaining and repairing the municipal drains may be levied and collected jointly as ‘water and sewerage charges’ at the rate based on the carpet area and the type of the property.] “ 8.4 Section 141B reads as follows : “141B. General Tax at what rate leviable.- (1) For the purposes of [clause (c) of section 141AA, general tax] shall, subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions hereinafter provided, be levied annually on buildings and lands in the City at such rate per square metre of the carpet areas of buildings and of the areas of lands (hereinafter referred to as “the rate of tax”) as the Corporation may determine. (2) For the purpose of levy of tax on buildings in the City under sub-section (1),- (a) the buildings may be classified into residential buildings and buildings other than residential; and Page 29 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT (b) the Corporation may determine one rate of tax for residential buildings and the other rate of tax for buildings other than residential; Provided that it shall be lawful for the Corporation to determine for residential buildings, the carpet area of which does not exceed forty square metres, such rate of tax as is lower than the rate of tax determined for residential buildings generally under this sub-section. (3) The rate of tax determined under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) shall not- (a) in respect of residential buildings, be less than ten rupees per square metre of carpet area and more than forty rupees per square metre of carpet area, and (b) in respect of buildings other than residential, be not less than twenty rupees per square metre of carpet area and more than eighty rupees per square metre of carpet area. (4) The Corporation may, subject to rules, increase or decrease or neither increase nor decrease the rate of tax determined under sub-section (1) read with sub- sections (2) and (3),- (a) in the case of residential buildings, having regard to the following factors, namely:- (i) the market value of the land in the area of Page 30 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT the City in which the buildings are situated, (ii) the length of the time of the existence of the buildings. (iii) the type of the buildings, and (iv) whether the buildings are occupied by owners or tenants. (b) in the case of buildings other than residential, having regard to the following factors, namely:- (i) the market value of the land in the area of the City in which the buildings are situated. (ii) the length of the time of the existence of the buildings, (iii) the purpose for which the buildings are used, and (iv) whether the buildings are occupied by owners or tenants. (5) In lieu of the general tax leviable under sub-section (1) read with sub-sections (2) and (3), there shall be levied annually on,- (a) residential huts, and (b) residential tenements in a chawl, each such tenement having carpet area not exceeding twenty-five square metres,- such amount of tax as the Corporation may determine : Provided that the amount so determined shall not be less than such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. Page 31 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT Explanation.- For the purpose of levy of tax under this section, where an addition is made to an existing building whereby the carpet area of that building is increased, such addition shall be treated as a separate building and the length of the time of its existence shall be computed from the year in which the addition is made.” 8.5 Section 453 reads as follows : “453. Rules in Schedule to be part of the Act.- The rules in Schedule A as amended from time to time shall be deemed to be part of this Act.” 9. We shall now look into few relevant rules. 9.1 Rule 9 of the Rules, reads as under : “9. Assessment book what to contain.- The Commissioner shall keep a book, to be called the assessment book, in which shall be entered every official year- (a) a list of all buildings or lands or as the case may be, premises in the City, distinguishing each either by name or number as he shall think fit, and containing such particulars regarding the location or nature of each as will, in his opinion, be sufficient for identification; (b) the rateable value of each such building or land or as the case may be, premises determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules; Page 32 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT (c) the name of the person primarily liable for the payment of the property taxes, if any, leviable on each such building or land or as the case may be premises; (d) if any such building or land or as the case may be premises is not liable to be assessed to the general tax, the reason of such non-liability; (e) when the rates of the property-taxes to be levied for the year have been duly fixed by the Corporation and either the period fixed by public notice, as hereinafter provided, or the receipt of complaints against the amount of rateable value entered in any portion of the assessment book has expired, or the complaint, if any, made against any entry has been disposed of in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained, the amount of which each building or land or premises entered in such portion of the assessment-book is assessed to each of the property taxes, if any, leviable therein; (f) if, under section 134 or 135, a charge is made for water supplied to any building or land or premises by measurement, or the water-tax or charge for water by measurement is compounded for, or if, under section 137, the conservancy tax for any building or land or premises is fixed at a special rate, the particulars and amount of such charges, composition or rate; (g) such other details, if any, as the commissioner from time to time thinks fit to direct.” Page 33 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 9.2 Rule 15(2) reads as under : “15(2). In every case in which any premises for the first time been entered in the assessment-book as liable to the payment of property-taxes, or in which the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the Commissioner shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the issue of the public notice under sub-rule (1), give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature of such entry and informing him that any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within fifteen days from the service of the special notice.” 9.3 Rule 21B reads as under : “21B. Circumstances in which assessment book may be prepared, completed etc., after the expiry of year to which it relates.- Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall affect the preparation and completion of the assessment-book or of any part thereof or of any entry therein after the expiry of the year to which it relates, if such preparation or completion was not possible before the expiry of the year on account of any order of a court or any other competent authority, and the levy, collection and recovery of any tax based on such assessment-book, part or as the case may be entry shall not be called in question merely on the ground that the assessment- book, part or as the case may be, entry was not prepared or completed during the year to which it relates.” Page 34 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 10. The issue raised in the present writ application is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of (The) Anant Mills Co. Ltd. (Under Liquidation) vs. Municipal Corporation for the city of Ahmedabad and Others reported in 1993 (2) G.L.H. 897 had the occasion to look into the entire scheme of the Act alongwith the Rules and also the issue whether the assessment of property tax for any particular official year must be completed before the expiry of the official year. P.N. Bhagwati (C.J.) (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed as follows : “Then follows Rule 21-B which is a new rule introduced by the Amending Act and it sets out certain contingencies in which the Commissioner may prepare and complete the assessment book even after the expiration of the official year. It may be pointed out here that while construing the corresponding provisions relating to assessment and levy of property tax contained in the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 – which provisions are similar though not identical with the provisions of the Corporation Act and the rules – it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad v. Keshavlal (1965) 6 G.L.R. 228 that the procedure for assessment and levy of property tax set out in those provisions, must be completed before the expiry of the official year and no assessment can be made after the official year has ended. The scheme of the provisions of Page 35 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT the Boroughs Act and the present rules relating to assessment and levy of property tax being substantially the same, it would follow a fortiori that the ratio of this decision must apply equally in construing the provisions of the Corporation Act and the Rules and the assessment of property tax for any particular official year must be completed before the expiry of the official year. This position has now been impliedly recognised by the Legislature in enacting Rule 21B. Rule 21B accepts by necessary implication that having regard to the scheme of the Corporation Act and the Rules, the assessment of property tax for any particular official year must be completed before the expiry of the official year and thus give legislative approval to the decision in Keshavlal’s case (supra) and recognises that its ratio would also be applicable in the construction of the provisions of the Corporations Act and the Rules and having done so enacts an exception to the rule by providing that in cases falling within it, the assessment book may be prepared and completed even after the expiry of the official year. These are the relevant provisions of the Corporation Act and the Rules having bearing on the determination of the questions arising in these petitions.” 10.1 The aforesaid decision of this Court in Anant Mills Co. Ltd. (Supra) later came to be followed by this Court in the case of Kanaiya Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assessment and Recovery Officer and Anr. reported in 2003 (1) G.L.H. 449, wherein the Court held as under : Page 36 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT “6. The impugned notices which are challenged in these petitions show that they were special notices issued under Rule 15(2) and Rule 20(2) of the Taxation Rules. These notices were necessitated, because, the properties for which they were issued were brought within the city limits by the notification extending the limits. Under section 3(1) of the said Act, the local areas within the limits specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette shall constitute the City of Ahmedabad. These limits can be altered from time to time after consultation with the Corporation by the State Government by notification in the official gazette, as provided by sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act. 6.1 By virtue of the provisions contained in section 3A of the said Act, taxes, rules etc. applicable in the City automatically extend to the areas included in the City limits from the date on which they are so included and by superseding the taxes, rules etc. which were in force before such inclusion. When the area is included by a notification under section 3(3) of the said Act, the State Government may provide, by an order published in official gazette, for the matters enumerated in sub- section (3) of section 3A, which included in its clause (vii) the continuance within the area so included of all or any budget estimates, assessments, assessment list, or, as the case may be, assessment book, valuations, measurements or divisions made or authenticated by, or in respect of, the surrendering local authority and in force within its area immediately before the notified day, until they are superseded or modified. The Page 37 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT buildings in the plots of the petitioners already existed before these plots were included in the City area. The taxes applicable in the City, therefore, became applicable to them on the inclusion of the area of these plots in the City from the date of their inclusion, which admittedly was 15-11-1994. 6.2 Under Rule 15(2), it has been provided that, in every case in which any premises has for the first time been entered in the assessment book as liable to the payment of property – taxes, or in which the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the Commissioner shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the issue of the public notice under sub-rule (1), give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature of such entry and informing him any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within 15 days from the service of the special notice. Therefore, in all cases where the premises were entered for the first time in the assessment book are liable to payment of property taxes, a notice under Rule 15(2) could be issued and this was done in view of the inclusion of the premises in question within the municipal limits with effect from 15-11-1994. 7. Under Rule 9 of the Chapter VIII of the Schedule, the Commissioner is required to keep a book, to be called “the assessment book”, in which, he is required to enter every official year (which starts from 1st of April each year, as defined in section 2(7) of the Act), a list of all buildings or lands or premises in the City with Page 38 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT particulars sufficient for identification, rateable value thereof, the amount at which the property is assessed after the complaint, if any, made against any entry, has been disposed of as per the Rules. It appears from the record that the entries were made in the assessment book under Rule 9 with effect from 15-11-1994 in respect of the premises of these petitioners. That date fell in the official year 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995 and the property taxes applicable in the City applied to these properties from 15-11-1994 to 31-3-1995 in respect of that official year. 7.1 Under Rule 20(1) of the said Taxation Rules, the Commissioner is empowered upon any information at any time during the official year to which the assessment book relates, to amend the same, by inserting any premises previously omitted. Under sub- rule (2) of Rule 20, it is provided that, where any amendment is made under sub-rule (1) which has the effect of imposing on any person any liability for the payment of property taxes which would not be incurred but for such amendment or which has the effect of increasing the rateable value of any premises as stated in the assessment book, a special written notice as provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 shall be given by the Commissioner and, as far as may be, the procedure laid down in Rules 16, 17 and 18 shall be followed. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the said Rules became applicable by virtue of Rule 20(2) in respect of these premises and special notice was required to be issued to these petitioners under Rule 15(2) read with Rule 20(2) of these Rules. There was, Page 39 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT therefore, no question of a person primarily liable failing to give notice under Rule 5(1) as stipulated in Rule 21A in this case, because, these were not any new buildings for which such notice was required to be given under Rule 5(1) to the Commissioner by the persons primarily liable, but these were the properties to which City taxes became applicable by virtue of the notifications issued under sections 3(3) and 3A(3) of the said Act. The Commissioner would obviously have known about these notifications and that is why, he amended the assessment book under Rule 9. There was no question in this case of the Commissioner not having notice of the premises, because, the assessment lists etc. of these premises in force in the area immediately before the notified day were the relevant record from which the absorbing local authority would have already known about the constructions existing on these premises. Even the Commissioner has not taken up the plea which was toyed with by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation that he came to know about the existence of these premises at some later date from which the period of one year should be contemplated under Rule 21A. Under Rule 21A, it has been provided that, whenever it is noticed by the Commissioner that a new building has been erected or a building has been re-built or enlarged or any building which was vacant has been re-occupied or the user of any building has been changed and that the person primarily liable for the property taxes on such building has failed to give notice as required by sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, the Commissioner may, within a period of one year from the date on which the aforesaid relevant facts came to his notice, proceed to fix or re-fix the Page 40 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT rateable value of such building and assess or re-assess the property taxes on such building in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules with reference to the period commencing from the year during which the building was newly erected or the building was re- built or enlarged or was re-occupied or the change of user took place and accordingly the taxes so assessed may be levied, collected and recovered and the provisions of the Act and the Rules shall so far as may be, apply to such levy, collection and recovery. 8. By Rule 21-B, it is provided that, nothing in the foregoing provisions of the Chapter VIII shall affect the preparation and completion of the assessment book or of any part thereof or of any entry therein after the expiry of the year to which it relates, if such preparation or completion was not possible before the expiry of the year on account of any order of a Court or any other competent authority, and the levy, collection and recovery of any tax based on such assessment book, part or as the case may be, entry shall not be called in question merely on the ground that the assessment book, part, or, as the case may be, entry was not prepared or completed during the year to which it related. 8.1 The contention that the notification by which the areas covered by the plots of the petitioners were included in the City area with effect from 15-11-1994 should be treated as an order of the competent authority within the meaning of Rule 21-B is nothing but an exercise in desperation. It cannot be said that, Page 41 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT by issuance of such a notification, it was not possible for the Commissioner to complete the assessment book or any part thereof or any entry made therein before the expiry of the year to which it related. The assessment and levy in respect of the period from 15- 11-1994 upto 31-3-1995 was obviously required to be completed in the official year ending on 31st March 1995. As per the settled legal position, the assessment must be completed before the close of the official year [Anand Mill’s case (supra)]. Therefore, to this limited extent, the recovery sought to be made for the period between 15-11-1994 to 31-3-1995, cannot be sustained since it was not open to the Commissioner to assess and levy property tax for that period on the basis of the special notices issued on 13-2-1996. Therefore, to the extent to which the impugned notice relates to the aforesaid period of 15-11-1994 to 31-3-1995 and purports to assess the taxes for that period, it cannot be sustained, and if any recovery of tax is effected for that period, the petitioners would be entitled to adjustment of the same. 8.2 The impugned special notices dated 13-2-1996 are, therefore, declared to be inoperative only to the limited extent to which they related to the assessment of taxes for the period from 15-11-1994 to 31-3-1995, and the petitioners would be entitled to adjustment of the taxes recovered, if any, for the said period. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.” 10.2 In L.M. Patel and Ors. vs. Baroda Municipal Page 42 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT Corporation reported in 1995 (1) G.L.H. 1198, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered Anant Mills Co. Ltd. (Supra) and held as under : “Under Rule 9 of the said Rules Assessment Book which is required to be kept by the Commissioner has to contain the entries mentioned therein every official year. Accordingly ratealbe value at item No. (b) determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules, is required to be entered in the Assessment Book every official year. Under Rule 21B it is only when the said entry cannot be made in the Assessment Book on account of any order of a Court or any other competent authority, the levy, collection or recovery of tax made on the basis of an entry made after expiry of the order cannot be questioned. The procedure four (sic.) assessment of levy set out in the provisions of the Rules is required to be complied with before expiry of the official (sic.) and no assessment can be made after the official year. This is clear from reading of Rules 9, 17 and 21 and 21B of the said Rules. Rule 21B accepts by necessary implication that having regard to the scheme of the Corporation Act and the Rules, the assessment of property tax for any particular official year must be completed before the expiry of official year, by indicating exception that for any case falling within 21B, assessment book may be prepared and completed even after expiry of the official year. The requirement that assessment must be completed before the close of the official year is mandatory requirement only subject to express provision in Rule 21B and once the official year has Page 43 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT expired it would not be open to the commissioner to assess and levy property tax. This position of law is settled in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of city of Ahmedabad and Ors. Reported in 1993(2) G.L.H. 897 and the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad v. Keshav, reported in VI G.L.R. 228.” 10.3 The similar provision occurring in Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (for short, “the Act of 1925”), came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Solapur Municipal; corporation v. Ramchandra Ramappa Madgundi, 1972 (74) BLR 469 : (1972 Tax LR 2581). The expression “current official year” occurring in Section 82(3) of the Act of 1925 was construed to mean the earliest day in the official year which is current when the amendment of the assessment list takes place. In other words, the expression “current official year”, as per the Full Bench, refers to only that official year which is running at the time when the amendment is made by insertion or alteration of an entry. 10.4 The aforesaid view of the Full Bench was approved by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of City of Hubli v. Page 44 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT Subha Rao Hanumatharao Prayad, (1976) 4 SCC 830 : (AIR 1976 SC 1398). 10.5 The Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of City of Hubli v. Subha Rao Hanumantharao Prayag and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1398 had the occasion to consider few provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (18 of 1925), quite analogous to the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned. The principle contention before the Supreme Court was that on a true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, the the authentication of the assessment list, in order to be valid and effective, need not be made before the expiry of the official year to which the assessment list relates and it is sufficient to impose liability to tax for the official year even if it is made at any time after the expiry of the official year. In the case before the Supreme Court, though authentication of the assessment list for the official year 1951-52 was made on 24th July, 1952 after the expiry of the official year, it was argued that the same was valid and effective and operated to create liability on the tax payers for the payment of tax at the revised rates. Page 45 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 10.6 The Supreme Court took into consideration Section 78 to 89 of the act dealing with the assessment of and liability to rates of buildings and lands. The Supreme Court took into consideration Section 84 treating it to be important Section which provided for the adoption of valuation and assessment contained in the assessment list of any particular year for the year immediately following. The Supreme Court reproduced Section 84, which reads as follows : “84. (1) It shall not be necessary to prepare a new assessment list every year. Subject to the condition that every part of the assessment list shall be completely revised not less than once in every four years, the Chief Officer may adopt the valuation and assessment contained in the list for any year, with such alterations as may be deemed necessary, for the year immediately following. (2) But the provisions of Section 80, 81 and 82 shall be applicable every year as if a new assessment list had been completed at the commencement of the official year.” 10.7 Ultimately, the Supreme Court proceeded to held as under : “6. It is clear from the scheme of these provisions that the official year is the unit of time for the levy of the tax. The provisional assessment list is prepared for the Page 46 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT official year. This may be done before the commencement of the official year or even thereafter in the course of the official year. Then objections are invited and when made, they are disposed of and amendments consequential upon the decisions on the objections are carried out in the assessment list. The assessment list is then authenticated. The process of assessment and levy of the tax which begins with the preparation of the provisional assessment list is thus completed when the assessment list is authenticated. The assessment list, when authenticated, becomes effective from the first day of the official year and gives rise to the liability to pay tax. It is on the authentication of the assessment list that the liability of the ratepayers to pay tax arises and the tax is levied on the rate- payers. This position would seem to be clear as a matter of plain interpretation and in any event there is a long line of decisions of the Bombay High Court commencing from Sholapur Municipality v. Governor General, 49 Bom LR 752 = (AIR 1948 Bom 145) and ending with Sholapur Municipal Corporation v. Ramchandra, 74 Bom LR 469 = (1972 Tax LR 2581) which has consistently accepted this position and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Borough did not dispute the correctness of these decisions. The only contention raised by him was as to within what time the assessment list must be authenticated, if it is to be a valid and effective assessment list. If is to this contention that we must now address ourselves. 7. Now, once we take the view that the process of levying the tax is complete only when the assessment Page 47 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT list is authenticated and it is only then that the tax is levied on the rate-payers, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the authentication must be made within the official year. The tax, being a tax for the official year, must obviously be levied during the official year and since the levy of the tax is complete only when the assessment list is authenticated, it must follow a fortiori that the authentication on the making of which alone the levy of the tax is effected, must take place in the official year. Any other view would result in an anomalous and rather absurd situation, namely, that the tax for an official year would be leviable at any time, even years after the expiration of the official year. That could not possibly have been intended by the legislature. That would indeed be a strange consequence in case of a tax which is annual in its structure and organisation and which is intended to be levied for each official year. 8. But, apart from this consideration, there is inherent evidence in the sections themselves which shows that the authentication was intended by the legislature to be a step which must be taken before the close of the official year. Section 84 provides that it shall not be necessary to prepare a new assessment list every year but, subject to the conditions that every part of the assessment list shall be completely revised not less than once in every four years, the Chief Officer may adopt the valuation and assessment contained in the list for any year, with such alterations as may be deemed necessary, for the year immediately following. This provision postulates that there would be an Page 48 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT assessment list for each official year at the close of that official year, so that the valuation and assessment contained in it can be adopted by the Chief Officer for the immediately following year. Now clearly the assessment list which can be adopted for the immediately following year is the authenticated assessment list and it would, therefore, seem that the legislative assumption underlying this provision is that in respect of each official year, there would be an authenticated assessment list before the close of that official year, so that the valuation and assessment contained in it can be adopted by the Chief Officer for the immediately following year. Otherwise, it would not be possible for the Chief Officer to adopt the valuation and assessment of the preceding official year and he would have to prepare a new provisional assessment list every time when the assessment list for the preceding year is not finalised and authenticated and this might lead to the rather starting result of there being several provisional assessment lists for different official years in the process of finalisation at the same time. We should be slow to accept an interpretation which might lead to such a strange consequence. 9. Then again considerable light on this question is thrown by the provision enacted in S. 82. It is a well- settled rule of interpretation that the Court is “entitled and indeed bound, when construing the terms of any provision found in a statute, to consider any other parts of the Act which throw light on the intention of the legislature, and which may serve to show that the particular provision ought not to be construed as it would be alone and apart from the rest of the Act.” The Page 49 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT statute must be read as a whole and every provision in the statute must be construed with reference to the context and other clauses in the statute so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Obviously, therefore, Sections 78 to 81 must be so construed as to harmonise with Section 82. They must be read together so as to form part of a connected whole, Section 82, sub-section (1) provides for making of an amendment in the assessment list by insertion or alteration of any entry in certain events after hearing objections which may be made by any person interested in opposing the amendment. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 82 makes the amendment effective from “the earliest day in the current official year on which the circumstances justifying the entry or alteration existed.” The expression ‘current official year’ in the context in which it occurs in S. 82, sub-section (3) clearly signifies the earliest day in the official year which is current when the amendment in the assessment list takes place and that expression refers only to the official year which is running at the time when the amendment is made by insertion or alteration of an entry under sub-section (1) of Section 82. It would, therefore, seem clear, on a combined reading of sub-secs. (1) and (3) of Section 82, that an amendment, in order to be effective in levying tax for an official year, must be made during the currency of the official year. That is now well settled as a result of several decisions of the Bombay High Court culminating in the Full Bench decision in Sholapur Municipal Corporation v. Ramchandra, (1972 Tax LR 2581 (Bom)) (supra) and we do not see any reason to take a different view. Now the scheme of Sections 78 to 81 is identical with that of Page 50 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT Section 82 and in both cases what is contemplated first is a proposal to which objections are invited and after the objections are investigated and disposed of, the assessment list in the one case and the altered entry in the other are authenticated giving rise to liability in the rate-payer. It must follow a fortiori that if an alteration in the assessment list, in order to fasten liability on the rate-payer, is required to be made during the currency of the official year, equally, on a parity of reasoning, the assessment list, in order to give rise to liability in the rate-payer, must also be authenticated before the expiry of the official year. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that the legislature did not intend that there should be any time-limit in regard to the levy of tax for an official year and that the tax should be legally leviable at any time after the close of the official year. There is, in our opinion, sufficient indication in the various provisions of the Act to show that the authentication of the assessment list, in order to be valid and effective, must be made within the official year, though the tax so levied may be collected and recovered even after the expiry of the official year.” 10.8 Subsequently in Kalyan Municipal Council v. Usha Paper Products (P) Ltd., (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 306, the Apex Court while dealing with the identical provisions contained in the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 followed its earlier judgment given in the Municipal Corporation of City of Hubli (supra) and in paragraph 5 of the report held thus : Page 51 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT “5. The aforesaid statement in the judgment of this Court clearly shows that the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sholapur Municipal Corporation v. Ramchandra was approved by this Court. The decision of the aforesaid Bench of this Court is binding on us and is clearly applicable to the case before us. In that judgment this Court pointed out that once it was accepted that the process of levying the tax is complete only when the assessment list is authenticated and it is only then that the tax is levied on the rate payers, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the authentication must be made within the official year. The tax, being a tax for the official year, must obviously be levied during the official year and since the levy of the tax is complete only when the assessment list is authenticated it must follow that the authentication must take place in the official year.” 10.9 The law laid down by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of the Solapur Municipal Corporation and approved by the Apex Court in the Municipal Corporation of City of Hubli and further re-iterated in the Kalyan Municipal Council is applicable on all fours in the light of the statutory provision contained in the Rules and the definition of the expression “official year” occurring in Section 2(44). Any amendment in the assessment book by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building erected, re- iterated, altered, added to or reconstructed in whole or in part Page 52 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT of the assessment book shall be and can only be effective during the currency of official year. The expression “official year” defined under Section 2(44) of the Act 1949 read with Rule 20(1)(e) indicates without doubt the legal position that the property tax being tax for the official year must be levied inly during the official year. 10.10 The submission of Mr. Soparkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation that the rules are subservient to the main provisions of the Act and when the Act is silent, it is open for the Corporation to issue a property tax bill even of the prior years. We are not impressed by such submission because Section 127(3) of the Act, 1949 makes it very clear that the municipal taxes shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Apart from the same, Section 453 of the Act, 1949 makes it clear that the Rules in schedule A, as amended from time to time, shall be deemed to be part of the Act, 1949. 10.11 We may only say as observed by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of the city of Hubli (supra) that the statute must be read as a whole and every provision in the statute must be construed with reference to the context Page 53 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT and the other clauses in the statute so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. 10.12 We are also not impressed by the submission that the writ applicants are not entitled to seek any relief from this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having regard to their conduct. We are dealing with a tax matter. The provisions are to be construed strictly. The conduct of the writ applicant is not sufficient to give a total go-bye to the mandatory provisions of the Act as well as the Rules. Even otherwise, we are not convinced with such submission canvassed on behalf of the Corporation. The Corporation wants this Court to reject the writ application on the ground that as the writ applicants were negotiating with the Corporation, the time period consumed should be taken into consideration and the Court should not go strictly by the definition of the term “official year” as defined under Section 2(44) of the Act. We are not at all impressed by such submission. We may remind the Revenue of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle I, Ward A, Rajkot, reported in (1977) 106 ITR 1, which read thus : Page 54 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT “It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well-versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue.” 10.13 At this stage, Ms. Megha Jani, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants in Special Civil Application No.7181 of 2018, submitted that the facts of her case are slightly on a different footing and therefore, the Special Civil Application No.7181 of 2018 may be considered separately. Ms. Jani has tendered a brief note in writing of her submissions. The same is as follows : “1. The petitioner is an Association of Industrialists and Plot Holders of GIDC Phase-II and Phase-III at Dared, Jamnagar. The members of the Petitioner Associate comprise of approximately 1030 Plot Holders of Phase-II and 1485 Plot holders of Phase-III. The members of the Association have been regularly paying service charges to GIDC. Regulations Setting Out Procedures, Principles And Other Details For Allotment Of Buildings And Premises As Framed Under Section 54(1) Of GIDC Act provide for payment of service charges by plot holders to GIDC. Page 55 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 2. Regulation 5(37) define service charges (Regulation 5(37) reproduced on Pg.6 of the Petition). Regulation 13 provides that service charges are to be paid till a local authority takes over (Regulation 13 reproduced on Pg.6 of the Petition). The Plot Holders are paying service charges to GIDC regularly (the calculation of service charges at Annexure-C, Pg.-32 to 39). 3. Municipal limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation came to be extended by Notification dated 04.10.2013 (Annexure-N, Pg.180 to 184). It appears that the area of GIDC came to be covered under the aforesaid Notification. 4. Though the municipal limits were extended, no bills were issued by Municipal Corporation for property tax. 5. The property tax bills were received by some of the Plot holders for the first time in March, 2018 (copy of list of plot holders and details of bills raised on them is produced at Annexure-P, Pg.237 to 384, copies of Bills dated 31.03.2018 raised on plot holders within Phase-II and Phase-III are produced at Annexure-Q, Pg.385 to 914). 6. The Petitioner submits that levy of property tax on the Plot Holders by Jamnagar Municipal Corporation is ex-facie bad, illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside as :- (i) The bills are raised without following procedure mandatory to demanding property tax. Under Taxation Rules contained in Chapter-VIII of Page 56 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT Schedule-A of GPMC Act, manner and method of levy of tax is laid down (Relevant Rules are summarized in Para-8.2, Pg.16 to 18 of the Memo of Petition). The Petitioner states that the Corporation las not issued either General Notice or Special Notice and has not prepared assessment books. Corporation has filed affidavit at Pg.915, Sur-Rejoinder at Pg.1001 and further Sur-Rejoinder at Pg.1018. In none of the aforesaid pleadings, details about preparation of assessment book or issuance of Special or General Notice as required in law is mentioned. It is an established principle of law that it is mandatory for the Corporation before imposing tax on anyone to prepare assessment book, issue General Notice as required under Section 13 and 15, issue Special Notice as required under Section 15(2), make entries in the assessment book and authenticate the same entries in the same official year to which the assessment book relates. The said proposition is well settled as laid down in the following judgments : (a) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation V/s. Jhaveri Keshavlal Lallubhai, 1965 GLR 228 (Paras-20, 21, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 46) (b) Kalyan Municipal Council & others V/s. Usha Paper Products (P) Ltd. & another, (1988) 3 SCC 306 (Pare-5) (c) L.M. Patel & others V/s. Baroda Municipal Corporation, Page 57 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 1995 (1) GLH 1198 (Para-4, 5 and 6) (d) Adani Gas Limited V/s. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in Special Civil Application No.2576 of 2012 and other allied matter, judgment dated 04.08.2015 (Para-13.14, 19.2 and 20). (ii) The bills are raised for the first time in March, 2018, seeking recovery of tax from October, 2013 to 31.03.2018. Retrospective levy of municipal tax is not permissible as is laid down in the judgments mentioned above. (iii) Plot holders have paid service charges to GIDC till date. The service charges paid by the Plot Holders are levied in place of property tax levied by a local authority. JMC cannot demand property tax for the period during which service charges are paid to GIDC. The Regulations authorizes GIDC to levy service charges till a local authority takes over. There is nothing to indicate in the present case that JMC has taken over the maintenance of the roads, water supply, drainage, street lights and such other services from GIDC. JMC, in the circumstances, cannot demand property tax from the plot holders of GIDC. In any case, claim of JMC, if any, for taxes for the period during which service charges are levied by GIDC would be against GIDC. The situation of double taxation continues to exist as plot holders face demands from both GIDC and Corporation. Page 58 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 7. The petition is filed also with respect to declaration of GIDC Phase-II and Phase-III as notified areas. The said issue is pending consideration before GIDC and/or State. The Petitioner does not press for relief in terms of para-14A(i) and (ii) at this stage.” 10.14 At the outset, Ms. Jani submitted that she is not pressing for the relief as prayed for in terms of paragraph 14(A)(i) and (ii) at this stage. She submitted that her clients may avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, so far as the relief in terms of paragraph 14(A)(i) and (ii) is concerned. As the relief in terms of paragraph 14(A)(i) and (ii) has not been pressed, the other submissions which have been canvased are covered by the reasons we have assigned in the judgement. 11. In such circumstances referred to above, all the writ applications succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned respective tax bill as issued by the Corporation in each of the writ application is hereby quashed and set aside. 11.1 So far as the Special Civil Application No.7181 of 2018 is concerned, the same is partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills issued by the Corporation are hereby quashed and set aside. Page 59 of 60

C/SCA/18000/2018 JUDGMENT 11.2 Mr. Soparkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation made a fervent appeal to this Court to clarify that this judgement shall operate in personem and not in rem. 11.3 In the aforesaid context, we would recall a caution enunciated by Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495 at p.506 and reiterated by the Privy Council in Punjab Co- operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore, AIT 1940 PC 230, for observance in the appreciation of precedents, especially on a question of some nicety that “every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions, which may be found there, are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed or qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.” (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly Page 60 of 60