MUN.CORP.OF GR.MUMBAI & ORS Vs. CRESCENT BUILDERS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 2411 of 2016, Judgment Date: Mar 01, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO 2411 OF 2016
                   (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13390/2012)


M/s. Municipal Corporation
of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.                                          .....Appellants


                                  Versus

Crescent Builders                                           ......Respondent


                                  J U D G M E N T

Kurian,J.


1.    Leave granted.

2.    The issue raised in this appeal pertains to the  steps  taken  by  the
appellant-Municipal Corporation for assessment  of  property  tax.   In  the
context and the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case,  it  is
not necessary for us and it will not be proper also at this  stage  to  deal
with the various contentions.  The High Court by the impugned  judgment  has
ultimately issued  a direction to the Assessing Authority  to  complete  the
assessment and has also issued another direction to the respondent  to  make
a deposit of 25% of the amounts due w.e.f. 01.04.2008,  with  18%  interest.
We express no opinion on the justification adopted by  the  High  Court  for
choosing that date and  percentage.   After  all,  it  is  only  an  interim
arrangement pending the final assessment.

3.    The learned senior counsel appearing  for  the  Corporation,  however,
submits that the High Court has already entered a finding at paragraph 8  of
the judgment regarding the method  of  assessment.   Paragraph  8  reads  as
follows:

“In view of the above settled legal position we find considerable  substance
in the argument on behalf of the appellant that  the  Municipal  Corporation
could not have levied property tax on the land in question,  otherwise  than
in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments and  in  the
aforesaid circular dated 8 July,1997 at Exhibit D to the petition.”

4.    After also having heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned  senior  counsel
appearing for the respondent,  we  find  it  difficult  to  agree  with  the
approach taken by the High Court at this stage.  The High Court has  already
directed the Assessing Authority to complete the  assessment  and  therefore
everything should have been left to that Authority.

5.    The Assessing Authority has to complete the assessment  in  accordance
with law.  Therefore, the factual and legal positions are  at  large  before
the Assessing Authority  and  it  is  for  both  the  parties  to  take  all
available contentions before the Assessing Authority. We  hence  vacate  the
finding entered by the  High  Court  and  also  all  other  observations  on
merits, in  the  impugned  judgment  regarding  the  method  of  assessment.
However, we retain the interim arrangement made  by  the  High  Court.   The
Assessing Authority shall complete the assessment expeditiously.

6.    All contentions available to both the parties  are  left  open  to  be
taken before the Assessing Authority.

7.    In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with no  order  as  to
costs.

                                                       ....................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]



                                                    .......................J.
                                                     [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
 MARCH 01, 2016