Municipal tax apportionment permits occupant participation, proportionate pre-deposit appeals, and a valid recovery fiction for rent-based enforcement.

Where municipal consolidated rate is statutorily apportioned between owners and occupants, tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers are entitled to notice and an effective opportunity to participate in assessment and reassessment. The appeal remedy is not rendered illusory by a pre-deposit requirement: each aggrieved occupant may appeal on depositing only the portion of tax or surcharge attributable to that person. The recovery and apportionment scheme, including the fiction treating apportioned tax as rent for recovery, is valid when confined to enforcement and read harmoniously with tenancy law. The legal position was stated to apply only to pending and future proceedings, not concluded matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers were entitled to notice and participation in the assessment and reassessment of consolidated rate; (ii) whether the appeal remedy under the Act was available to such persons only on deposit of the entire assessed tax or only the portion attributable to them; (iii) whether the recovery and apportionment provisions, including the deeming of tax as rent for recovery, were constitutionally invalid.

Issue (i): Whether tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers were entitled to notice and participation in the assessment and reassessment of consolidated rate.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required valuation, assessment, revision and amendment to be preceded by public notice and, where applicable, written notice. The provisions for returns, inspection of assessment lists, objections and hearing showed that persons other than the owner were intended to participate where they bore a substantial part of the tax burden. The practical difficulty of serving every individual in large buildings did not justify denial of participation, though a mere defect in notice would not vitiate the assessment unless serious prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: Tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers were entitled to notice and an effective opportunity to participate in the assessment process.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal remedy under the Act was available to such persons only on deposit of the entire assessed tax or only the portion attributable to them.

Analysis: The Act treated tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers as persons liable along with the person primarily liable. Since their liability was separately ascertainable and proportionate, insisting on deposit of tax for the entire building would make the remedy illusory. The deposit condition therefore had to be construed in a workable manner so that each aggrieved person could appeal on depositing only the portion of consolidated rate or surcharge found payable by that person.

Conclusion: The right of appeal was available to tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers on pre-deposit of the portion of tax attributable to them.

Issue (iii): Whether the recovery and apportionment provisions, including the deeming of tax as rent for recovery, were constitutionally invalid.

Analysis: The apportionment scheme reflected the legislative object of distributing the burden between owners and actual users, especially where commercial or non-residential occupation generated greater municipal demand. The deeming fiction treating the apportioned tax as rent was confined to recovery and operated to provide an effective mechanism for reimbursement by the owner or lessor. Read with the tenancy law, the provision did not create legislative conflict or uncanalised power.

Conclusion: The recovery and apportionment provisions, including the deeming fiction, were valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenged provisions were upheld with a harmonious and restrictive construction where necessary, and the legal position declared was made applicable to pending and future proceedings only, not to concluded matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Where municipal taxation is statutorily apportioned between an owner and other liable occupants, the statute must be construed to preserve participation in assessment and an effective appeal remedy on deposit of only the proportionate liability, and a recovery fiction limited to enforcement is not invalid merely because it treats apportioned tax as rent.

---