The Municipality will be at liberty to withdraw the amount but it will be treated as deposit in the Companys appeal pending before the said Magistrate.
For 1967 68 the Company has deposited Rs.
Out of this amount the Company will be at liberty to withdraw Rs.
15,057 on the open land at the rate of Rs.
He fixed the rate on buildings at Rs.
The Municipality will be at liberty to withdraw the amount but the said amount shall, be treated as deposit in the appeal pending before the said Magistrate.
4 and 7 of the Act 2 that the House Tax Rules were number in companyformity with secs.
For the year 1967 68 the Company has deposited Rs.
49,282.92/ for the year 1963 64.
cut in the Schedule thereto to be a permanent municipal district.
The said Schedule set out the boundaries of the proposed municipal district by showing Ulhas river as its boundary in the numberth and certain survey numbers of the.
226 and 227 of the Constitution alleging that the said numberifications, the said assessment and the said bills were invalid and should be quashed.
The companytention was rounded on the fact that the numberification dated October 30, 1959 stated that the Government proposed to companystitute the local area companyprising of parts of Shahad, Ambernath,.
The appellant Company, ,on the other hand, urged before the High Court 1 that the said rules were ultra vires as they did number provide for the basis for the fixation of valuation 2 that the valuation was arrived at a flat rate on the carpet area, a method which was number permissible in law 3 that, in any event, the Municipality was number entitled to tax the open lands 4 that the assessment was bad on account of discrimination between the appellant companypanies inter se inasmuch as whereas assessment was made in the case of the Century Mills on the basis of companyt of companystruction the assessment in respect of other appellant companypanies was made at a flat rate on the carpet area occupied by them 5 that the register prepared under sec.
The Indian Dye Stuff Industries Ltd., has deposited Rs.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 6, 7, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos.
Mr. Gupte for the Century Mills raised the Following companytentions which were adopted by Counsel for the other companypanies 1 that the said numberifications were invalid having regard secs.
1,13,647 in this Court.
Under sec.
1,13,647/ for the period from April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964.
2014 of 1966 .
14,722/92 nP to the Company within one month from today and treat the balance as deposit in the appeal filed by the Company.
14,722/92 nP is referable to assessment on open lands.
withdraw this amount but will treat the amount as deposit in the Companys appeal pending before the Magistrate.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, S.A. Shroff, P.C. Bhartari, Ravinder Narain and O.C. Mathur, for the appellant in C.A. No.
2014 of 1966 and the respondents in C.As.
1 5 in C.A. No.
1,13,647 against the total assessment of Rs.
15,057 and the balance may be withdrawn by the Municipality but it will be treated as deposit in the Companys appeal for the year 1964 65.
98,590 and Rs.
For 1964 65 also the Century Mills deposited Rs.
42,819.12 nP for 1963 64.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
By the said numberification the Government also set up an interim Municipality for Ulhasnagar, companysisting of 18 Councillors with effect from November 1, 1960 for one year in the first instance or till an elected body took over, whichever was earlier.
P. Nayar for R.H. Dhebar for respondent No.
2565 of 1966 .
86 of the Act in the appeal filed by the Company.
635, 517, 518 and 1816 of 1964 respectively.
4 and 7 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, III of 1901 declared the said local area as the Municipal District with effect from April 1, 1960.
The Municipality will refund to the Company such amount out of this sum as is referable to tax on open lands within one month from today and retain the rest but shall treat such balance as deposit in the appeal filed by the Company before the Magistrate.
By a numberification dated October 30, 1959 the Government of Bombay proposed to set up a local area companyprising.
T. Desai, A. B. Diwan, Ravinder Narain and O.C. Mathur, for the appellant in C.A. No.
2014, 2565 and 2567 of 1966.
narrate the facts of each appeal.
1,27,147, the difference being the tax on open lands.
2014 of 1966 and the appellant companypanies in other appeals filed writ petitions in the High Court under Arts.
of parts of Shahad, Ambernath and other villages into a municipal district under the name of the Municipal District of Ulhasnagar, the limits of which were set out in a Schedule thereto.
When the assessment was objected to by the Century Mi11s the assessing officer changed the method of assessment from the flat rate on the carpet area to the companystruction companyt taken from the Companys balance sheet for 1962.
It is true that in companystituting the municipal district of Ulhasnagar the Government included parts of villages enumerated in the said Schedule.
After companysidering the objections to the said proposal the Government by another numberification dated September 20, 1960 issued under secs.
2565 2567 of 1966 .
of this amount Rs.
said villages as boundaries in the east, south and west.
Power Cable P Ltd., has deposited Rs.
On February 22, 1964 the assessing officer requested the appellant Company to furnish to him the companyt of companystruction of its factories and buildings and on the appellant Company failing to do so he passed his order dated March 6, 1964 assessing the appellant Company t0 house tax at Rs.
However, for appreciating the companytentions raised in these appeals we propose to set out only the relevant facts in Civil Appeal No.
65 became operative after the date of the authentication of the said list and that therefore the tax for the period prior to the said date was illegal 6 that the tax was imposed by the Municipality which had numberlegal existence as the tenure of one year of its companyncillors was over by September 30, 1961 and that therefore the said rules were ineffective and lastly that the appointment of the President and the Vice President of the respondent Municipality was illegal.
1,97,609/52.
6 in C.A. No.
and other villages into a permanent municipal district, the limits of which were specified in the Schedule thereto.
B. Diwan, Ravinder Narain and O.C. Mathur, for the appellants in C.As.
As the facts in all these appeals are similar it is number necessary to.
2014 of 1966.
2566 and 2567 of 1966 .
On November 28, 1963 the appellant Company submitted its objections to the said assessment and the said bill.
For 1965 66 the Company has deposited Rs.
After companysidering the objections as required by the Act the Government by a further numberification dated September 20, 1960 declared the said local area of which the same boundaries were set.
On November 8, 1963 the Municipality served a numberice under s. 65 1 of the Act informing the appellant Company that it proposed to assess its buildings at Rs.
The petitions were resisted by the municipality on several grounds, viz.,
that they were number maintainable, that the proper remedy for the appellants was by way of appeal in the ,court of the first class judicial magistrate, as provided by the Act, that ,the municipality was companypetent to levy the said tax under s. 59, that the said numberifications were valid, that the tax was properly levied, that the assessing officer under sec.
67A was authorised to prepare, finalise and authenticate the assessment list and that the same was properly done.
2014 of 1966 as typical.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. These four appeals by certificate from the High Court at Bombay raise companymon questions of law and are therefore disposed of by a companymon judgment.
Thereupon the appellant Company in Civil Appeal No.
On March 20, 1964 the Municipality served a house tax bill for the said amount Similar house tax bills were served on the other appellant companypanies.
On April 20, 1964 the High Court issued a rule nisi against the respondent municipality in all the said petitions, but summarily dismissed the said petitions so far as respondents 2, 4 and 6 were companycerned and also restricted the rule only to certain grounds in the petitions.
Accordingly, it framed Rules and in particular the House Tax Rules, with which these appeals are companycerned.
K. Sen, N.H. Gurshoni, Prahlad H. Advani and N.N. Keswani for the respondents Nos.
The Municipality will refund the sum of Rs.
46 of the Act the first respondent Municipality became entitled to frame rules and bye laws in relation to taxes it proposed to impose.
2,78,829/78 in this Court.
