ORDER
H.L. Gokhale, C.J. and R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. We have heard Mr. S. D. Singh, learned Counsel in support of the petition. No body is present for the Nagar Nigam Allahabad though the name of their counsel has been shown on the board.
2. The petitioner is a transport company having its premises in the Transport Nagar area of Allahabad. The grievance in this petition is that the Municipal Authority has revised the assessment of the concerned property of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an objection on receiving of notice but whatever decision was taken on it has not been made available to the petitioner.
3. As far as this petition is concerned it is pointed out that it is stated in Paragraph 7 of the petition that the petitioner was assessed to tax for the period from 1st April, 2003 to 31st March, 2004 and the tax levied was Rs. 1,425.60. That amount was duly paid on 16th July, 2003. It is further stated that in July, 2003, the petitioner received a notice dated 9th June, 2003, for revision of this assessment proposing to enhance the annual value of the construction raised by the petitioner to Rs. 2,14,287 and based on that the demand of tax was raised @ 10% of the annual value which came at Rs. 21,428.70.
4. The case of the petitioner is that it had lodged an objection and this objection was not being decided and in any case the petitioner is not being informed whatever decision was taken on the objection. It is also stated that the Union of the Transporters had also represented the case of the petitioner regarding the same reassessment and whatever decision was taken on it has not been furnished to the petitioner. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Legal Adviser of the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad and in Paragraph 15 it has been stated that there is no provision in the Nagar Nigam Act to provide a copy of the order of enhancement of the house tax. Again in Paragraph 17 it has been stated that notices are being sent to the owner of the house on the basis of the revised assessment but order of revision is not being provided to the owner of the house. Section 472 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) provides for the appeal against any annual value or tax fixed or charged under this Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 472 of the Adhiniyam provides that no appeal shall be heard unless In the case of an appeal against any tax in respect of which provision exists under this Act for an objection the same is made to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari against the demand. The section provides that such objection has to be made and has to be disposed of.
5. The submission of the petitioner is that as there is a specific provision that objection has to be made and has to be disposed of. The petitioner ought to know that what decision has been taken on the objection so that he can file an appeal.
6. In our view the submission raised by the petitioner Is well taken. The petitioner ought to know whatever decision has been taken on its objection as without which how it can file an appeal.
7. In the present case when the petition came up for admission before a Division Bench of this Court on 7th October, 2004, the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the tax demanded within 15 days from the date of the order. Sri S. D. Singh informs that amount has been deposited.
8. In the circumstances of the case we allow this petition and direct the Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad respondent No. 4 to furnish a copy of the decision taken on the objection filed by the petitioner so that the petitioner can file appeal under the aforesaid section. The aforesaid section provides that an appeal to be filed within 15 days. We make it clear that the entire period which has been spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the present petition will stand excluded. In the meanwhile the petitioner will deposit the 50% amount of the tax due. Petition allowed in above terms though without any order as to costs.