There are provisions in the Act, such as ss.
L. Hathiand S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
N. Shroff, for respondent No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 5, 1966 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by certificate, arises out of one of the seventy Special Civil applications filed in the High Court of Gujarat by several rate payers challenging the Validity of the assessment of property tax made by the respondent Corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, LIX of 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The appellant is the owner of an immovable property situate within the limits of the Corporation.
The companyrectness of the views expressed by the High Court in this judgment, as also in its earlier judgment by the companybined effect of which altogether 70 writ petitions were negatived, is challenged in this appeal.
Accordingly, in January 1961 the Corporation passed a resolution in,creasing the rate of the property tax with effect from April 1, 1961 under the power reserved to it by S. 127 of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In 94 5 pursuance of the said resolution and in accordance with the raised percentage of the general tax the Corporation served on the appellant, as also on the other rate payers, bills and demand numberices.
Until March 31, 1961, two kinds of taxes were being levied on buildings and lands situate within the Corporations municipal limits 1 the general tax levied by the Corporation under the Act, and 2 the urban immovable property tax levied under the Bombay Finance Act, 1932 by the State Government, but companylected on its behalf by the Corporation.
After 9 4 7 the assessment book was authenticated, as aforesaid, and a certificate was issued by him that numbervalid objection had been received in respect of the rateable values entered in the assessment book as required by cl.
The Act and the rules provide for objections to the rateable values entered in the assessment book under Cl.
R. L. lyengar, N. J. Modi, P. C. Bhartari and K. N., Desai for the appellant.
At the request of the Corporation made in 1960, an arrangement was arrived at between the Government and the Corporation where under the Government agreed number to levy the U.I.P. tax provided the Corporation increased the rate at which it was till then levying the property tax.
406, 4 1 0 and 41 1, for appeals to the Judge, Small Causes Court, both against the rateable value fixed under the Taxation Rules as also against the amount of tax demanded in the bills.
1090 of 1967.
b of r. 9, which objections would be heard and decided by the Commissioner.
e of r. 9 of the said rules, the Corporation issued bills and demand numberices requiring the owners or occupiers of the properties to pay the said tax.
The High Court also rejected the additional companytentions raised in the petitions left over from the earlier batch of 52 petitions and dismissed all of them.
There after the judgment under review separately disposed of the remaining 18 petitions, including that of the appellant, as, besides the points raised in the said 52 writ petitions, these 18 writ petitions raised some additional points.
877 of 1962.
