Reasonable-time assessment under cess rules cannot be delayed indefinitely; wrong statutory reference can vitiate reminder action.

Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation cess assessment scheme requires the Commissioner to consider evidence promptly and complete assessment expeditiously; the power cannot be kept pending indefinitely merely because further documents are awaited. The text states that, even without an express limitation period, assessment must be completed within a reasonable time consistent with the statutory scheme, and a ten-year delay after the Form-H notice was unreasonable. It further states that a reminder citing Rule 33 of the Local Body Tax Rules, instead of the governing cess rules, showed lack of application of mind and use of an incorrect legal framework, rendering the action unjustified to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment of cess under Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Cess on Entry of Goods) Rules, 1996 could be kept pending for nearly ten years after issuance of the initial notice in Form-H, and whether such delay rendered the proceedings liable to be quashed. (ii) Whether the reminder dated 24.09.2019, issued by referring to Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Local Body Tax) Rules instead of Rule 25 of the 1996 Rules, was vitiated.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment of cess under Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Cess on Entry of Goods) Rules, 1996 could be kept pending for nearly ten years after issuance of the initial notice in Form-H, and whether such delay rendered the proceedings liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Rule 25(3) requires the Commissioner to consider the evidence produced on the date fixed in Form-H or as soon as may be thereafter and complete assessment expeditiously. Where the dealer does not comply, Rule 25(4) authorises assessment to the best of judgment. The scheme of Rule 25 treats assessment as a complete code and does not permit indefinite postponement on the ground that further documents are awaited. The Court held that, in the absence of an express limitation period, completion of assessment must nevertheless occur within a reasonable period, which in the statutory setting of Rule 25 was informed by the three-year periods expressly provided in Rules 25(5) and 25(7) for other contingencies. On the facts, the Corporation had sufficient opportunity, yet did not complete assessment for more than ten years from the initial notice.

Conclusion: The prolonged failure to complete assessment was unreasonable and the assessment proceedings were liable to be quashed for the years where the ten-year period had expired. The challenge succeeded on this issue in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reminder dated 24.09.2019, issued by referring to Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Local Body Tax) Rules instead of Rule 25 of the 1996 Rules, was vitiated.

Analysis: The reminder was issued in a regime where the dealer had filed returns under the cess provisions of the 1996 Rules, while the relevant chapter dealing with cess had already been deleted with effect from 01.07.2017. The notice nevertheless invoked Rule 33 of the Local Body Tax Rules, which was not the governing provision for the pending cess assessment. Although quoting a wrong provision does not always invalidate action, here it reflected lack of due application of mind to the statutory source of power and confirmed that the Corporation had proceeded under an incorrect legal framework.

Conclusion: The reminder was held to be unjustified and vitiated to that extent, supporting the assessee's challenge.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were substantially allowed by quashing the impugned reminder for the relevant years where assessment had remained pending beyond a reasonable time, while leaving open the Corporation's liberty to proceed expeditiously for the unexpired year.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires assessment to be completed expeditiously or upon failure to comply with a notice to be determined to the best of judgment, the authority cannot postpone completion indefinitely; in the absence of an express outer limit, the power must still be exercised within a reasonable period consistent with the statutory scheme and the duty to act promptly.

---