TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1958 (2) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cutta Municipal Act, 1923. This appeal is governed by the provision of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as extended to the Municipality of Howrah, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Act;". 3. Admittedly, the Respondent Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. is the owner of a plot of land, measuring 2B-18K-I2Ch, together with separate structures thereon, which is numbered separately as premises Nos. 433 and 433/1, Grand Trunk Road (North). At one time premises No. 433 had been Jet out by the Respondent company to a tenant, who continued in occupation till September, 1950. 4. At the time of general re-valuation, effective from 3rd quarter 1948-49, the two premises had been separately assessed to municipal tax, in the manner hereinafter appearing: Premises No. 433, Grand Trunk Road: (Let out to a tenant at Rs. 500 per month) 500xl2=Rs. 6,000 . Less 10 per cent=Rs. 600 Annual value Rs. 5,400 Tax at 22 per cent=Rs. 1,188 Premises No. 433/1, Grand Trunk Road: (In occupation of the owner) Value of land, 1B-9K at Rs. 2,600 per cottta=Rs. 75,400 Value of Building=Rs. 38,234 Total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een amalgamated as prayed for. 10. On the same date, another letter [ext. 1(b)] was written by S.K. Sawday and Company on behalf of the Respondent Company, of" which the material portion is quoted below: 11. Our formal letter of objection is enclosed herewith. We would refer you to our letter No. 510/AP.TD/2912, dated July 9, 1953, to the assessor in which we requested him to amalgamate holding Nos. 433 and 433/1, G. T. Road (North), which are contiguous and of which our clients are both owners and occupiers. We fail to see why these two holdings have not been amalgamated and would request you to consider this question again at the time of hearing. 12. The Administrator of the Municipality rejected the objection by the Assessee by an Order [ext. dated July 6, 1954, and confirmed the annual value of premises No. 433 at Rs. 6,494. 13. On July 7, 1954, the Respondent Company, through its agent S.K. Sawday and Company, applied for a copy of the Order, dated July 6, 1954. The application is marked ext. 1(f) hereafter on July 10/14, 1954, S.K. Sawday and Company on behalf of the Respondent, wrote a letter to the Administrator, Howrah Municipality, protesting against the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l September 21, 1954. The reasons for this delay in the supply of copy will be dealt with hereinafter, while considering the plea of limitation taken by the Appellant. 19. On October 29, 1954, an appeal, as provided for by Section 141 of the Act, was filed by the Respondent Company against the order of increased assessment, made in respect of premises No. 433, Grand Trunk Road. 20. Before the lower appellate court, the appeal was opposed by the Municipality, on various grounds, two of which need be noted here, namely, that the appeal was barred by limitation and secondly, that the amalgamation could not be granted because there had been no compliance with the rules for amalgamation of the two premises. In clarification, of the second objection, it was contended at the time of the hearing of the appeal, before the lower appellate court, that the application for amalgamation could not be granted in as much as the two holdings had separate water connections. 21. The lower appellate court rejected the contentions raised by the Municipality and allowed the appeal. The order of the Administrator of the Municipality assessing premises No. 433, Grand Trunk Road, at an annual value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eminder to the Appellant [ext. 1(d)]. The prescribed fee was not sent even along with the said reminder and what was said in the aforesaid reminder was that if any fee was necessary for taking out a copy of the order, the same would be paid as soon as the Municipality advised the applicant regarding the amount. Thereafter a second reminder was sent by the Respondent on September 7, 1954, but even at that time the prescribed fee was not deposited. Ultimately the fee was deposited on September 10, 1954, as is evidenced by a receipt granted by the Howrah Municipality (ext. M) and the copy was made ready on September 13, 1954. The Respondent took delivery of the copy on September 21, 1954. According to Mr. Roy. the time from July 7, 1954: to September 21. 1954, was not the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against. The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. was not entitled to exclusion of this period under Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. As such the appeal filed by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. on October 29, 1954, when the Civil Counts reopened after the Puja holidays, was barred by the special limitation prescribed under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Municipal office endorsements on the application for copy, dated July 7, 1954. We find that on July 19, 1954, there was a note made on the application to the effect that necessary fees might be deposited with the Record Keeper. On July 30, 1954, another note was made on the application, "Please write". We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the Municipality failed to prove that it had actually written to the Respondent asking for deposit of fees. 29. In our opinion, however, nothing turns on whether the Municipality did or did not make any demand for fees. If fees were legally payable, then it was the duty of the applicant the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. to apply on payment of fees or to pay the fees in due time, in any event, before the period of limitation ran out. 30. The real question, therefore, is whether the Municipality had any lawful right to levy fees for copying charges. Mr. Roy argued that under Section 351A of the Bengal Municipal Act 1884, which applied to the Howrah Municipality at the material time, the Commissioner at a meeting could make Rules as to the business and affairs of the Municipality. Such Rules, if made, were subject to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the Schedule of fees (ext. N) had statutory validity behind it. 34. The elaborate argument of Mr. Roy can be disposed of on a short ground. Section 351A of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, does not authorise Commissioners of Municipalities, to make rules for levy of fee or charges for supply of copies. Therefore, under the authority of that section the schedule of fees, as in ext. N, could not be framed. If the Howrah Municipality framed any domestic rules in the matter, as evidenced by the proceedings of the Budget Special Committee of the Municipality (ext. P), the same had No. legal validity. Therefore although such fees were all through being charged and although ultimately the Respondent company also paid the fees so as to get the copy, we are not prepared to hold that the non-payment of such fees till September 10, 1954 was an instance of negligence and carelessness and disentitled the Respondent Company to the benefits of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. We hold that the entire period from July 7, 1954 till September 13, 1954 if not till the 21st September 1954) should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. If the above period is excluded Mr. Roy admits, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss any order on the application, dated July 9, 1953 and ignored it altogether in making the assessment. 37. We hold, in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge, that under Section 134 of the Act it is the option of the owner to amalgamate his holdings. On such amalgamation physically being made the Chairman of a Municipality must assess the holdings on amalgamation after assigning to them one or more numbers. Here the Respondent did all that it could do by itself in the matter of amalgamation. If without one water connection, the amalgamation was not complete, a proposition which we very much doubt, it was the duty of the Municipality to speak to the effect and call upon the Respondent to take steps for one water connection. The Municipality could not ignore the letter altogether and proceed in the matter of re-valuation, as if so amalgamation had been effected or sought to be effected. 38. The argument of Mr. Roy that in this case the Respondent Company did not itself amalgamate the two premises but left the matter to be done by the Municipality does not appeal to us. In the context of events, to which reference has already been made, the language used in ext. A, the le....