ORDER
Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. This revision is by the Corporation of the city of Mangalore questioning the order of the learned District Judge, Mangalore in M.A.No. 17/94 dated 30.6.2000 allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore dated 17.3.1994 in Ref.No. M.A. 2/93-94 restoring the assessment order of the Taxation Appeal Committee.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Sapthagiri Hotels (P) Ltd., are the owners of three premises bearing Nos. 3.3.19, 3.3.43 and 33.44 situated at Kavoor, Mangalore in which the petitioners were carrying on their business of non-vegetarian restaurant, lodging as well as running a conference hall. The premises in question was originally coming within the Village Panchayat limits of Kunjathbail and assessed for property tax. According to the Village Panchayat Act and Regulations, the area in which the premises were located was transferred to the limits of the Corporation area. Thereafter, the Corporation issued notice to the owner to levy tax with effect from 1.4.1989. The Corporation by an assessment order dated 5.10.1991, after considering the objections of the owner determined the property tax on the basis of annual rental value for half yearly demanding Rs. 3,647.66 in respect of premises No. 3.3.19, Rs. 7,159.40 in respect of premises No. 3.3.43 and Rs. 1,779.54 in respect of premises No. 3.3.49. The owner being aggrieved of the assessment order, preferred an appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee. The Taxation Appeal Committee after hearing the owner and the Corporation assessed its own rental value on the basis of the pre-existing conditions of the locality by reducing the half-yearly assessments at Rs. 1,945.48, Rs. 1,928.76 and Rs. 1,186.33 respectively in respect of said premises numbers. The Corporation being aggrieved of the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee preferred M.A.No. 2/93-94 before the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore which restored the assessment order of the Corporation by setting aside the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee. The owner of Sapthagiri Hotels (P) Ltd, being aggrieved of the order of the Divisional Commissioner preferred M.A.No. 17/94 before the learned District Judge, Mangalore, who in turn, restored the order of the Divisional Commissioner. It is this order which is now questioned in the present revision.
3. Learned Counsel Sri Vittal Rao, for the Corporation contended that the reasoning of the learned District Judge confirming the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee is against the provisions of the Corporation Taxation Rules. The assessment officer, after considering the location of the area and the annual rent that it fetches has determined the half yearly tax payable. Therefore, there was no reason for the Taxation Appeal Committee as well as the learned District Judge to interfere with the assessment of the property tax payable. It is further contended that the annual rental value of the 1st premises is Rs. 54,852.00, the annual rental value of the 2nd premises is Rs. 1,26,560.00 and the annual rental value of the 3rd premises is Rs. 26,769.00 which is based on facts and also by taking into consideration the adjacent rental value of the premises situated in and around the Corporation area. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the learned District Judge by confirming the order of the Divisional Commissioner.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Sri Hemaraj for the respondent firstly contended that the revision itself is not maintainable as the Corporation has not exhausted the remedy available under Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules. Therefore, the revision has to be dismissed in limine. He has secondly contended that the very transfer of the area to Corporation itself will not enable to assess the revised tax or levy tax without providing civic amenities. The assessment order dated 5.10.1991 does not speak of the inspection of the spot by the Commissioner. It is therefore, the Taxation Appeal Committee took all the relevant factors into consideration and reduced the annual rental value determined by the assessment officer to Rs. 21,942/- in respect of the 1st premises, Rs. 21,708/- in respect of the 2nd premises and Rs. 13,380/- in respect of the 3rd premises thereby determining the half-yearly tax payable at Rs. 1,945.48 as against Rs. 3,647.66, Rs. 1,922.76 as against Rs. 7,159.49 and Rs. 1,186,88 as against Rs. 1,779.54. He has lastly contended that the order of the learned District Judge is well founded with sound reasoning and therefore, does not call for interference. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision on both counts by restoring the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee.
5. In the light of the submissions, the points for consideration that arise are:
1. Whether the revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable in view of Rule 22 of Schedule 3 of the Corporation Act?
2. Whether the impugned order of the learned District Judge suffers from infirmities? If so, liable to be interfered with?
Points 1 and 2:
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner in possession carrying on with the hotel business in the name and style of Sapthagiri Hotels (P) Ltd., in respect of premises bearing Nos. 3.3.19, 3.3.43 and 3.3.44. It is also not in dispute that the said premises is situated at Kunjathbail Village on the main road leading towards Mangalore at a distance of about 10 K.Ms which was coming within limits of the Village Panchayat. Subsequently, the said area was notified which comprised within the Corporation limits of Mangalore. The Corporation by special notice dated 6.7.1990 called upon the owner to pay the proposed half yearly tax assessing annual rental value in respect of premises No. 3.3.19 at Rs. 65,8267-determining half yearly tax payable at Rs. 4,377.44 towards non-vegetarian restaurant, in respect of premises No. 3.3.43 assessing annual rental value at Rs. 1,66,560/- determining half yearly tax payable at Rs. 11,076.24 towards lodging and in respect of the third premises bearing No. 3.3.44 assessing annual rental value at Rs. 26,760/- determining half yearly tax payable at Rs. 1,779.54 towards open hall. In pursuance of the said notice, the owner filed objections to the Commissioner, Mangalore City Corporation, dated 30.6.1990. The Commissioner considering the objections statement and the location, in respect of the first premises No. 3.3.19 reduced the annual rental value from Rs. 65,826/-to Rs. 54,852/-, in so far as premises No. 3.3.43 is concerned from Rs. 1,66,560 reduced to Rs. 1,26,5607 – and in so far as premises No. 3.3.44 held the annual rental value fixed at Rs. 26,760/- is appropriate, the owner being aggrieved of the order of the Commissioner preferred an appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee. The Taxation Appeal Committee by its order dated 9.4.1992 reduced the annual rental value determined by the Commissioner from Rs. 54,852/- to Rs. 21,942/- in respect of premises No. 3.3.19, from Rs. 1,26,560/- reduced the annual rental value to Rs. 21,708/- in respect of premises No. 3.3.43 and in respect of premises No. 3.3.44 reduced the annual rental value from Rs. 26,760/- to Rs. 13,380/- and the half yearly tax payable at Rs. 1,945.48, Rs. 1,928.76 and Rs. 1,186.33 respectively and accordingly allowed the appeal by modifying the order of the Commissioner as above. The Corporation of Mangalore, being aggrieved of the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee preferred M.A.No. 2/93-94 before the Divisional Commissioner which restored the order of the Commissioner dated 5.10.1991 by setting aside the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee. The owner of the premises being aggrieved of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, preferred MA. No. 17/94 before the learned District Judge, Mangalore. The Learned District Judge, Mangalore by his order dated 30.6.2000 restored the order of the Taxation appeal Committee by setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner.
7. Chapter X of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 enumerates taxes which may be imposed and the procedure to be followed for imposing of such taxes on buildings and vacant spaces other than those exempted under Section 110 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
8. Section 148 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 reads thus:
“148. Corporation to revise taxes: (1) The Corporation shall revise any tax imposed by it once every five years and whenever enhancement of the rate is evidenced necessary, shall levy the enhanced rates after observing the procedure prescribed for the imposition of taxes.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (1), the Government may, at any time, direct the Corporation to revise any tax imposed by it and the Corporation shall so revise after observing the procedure prescribed for the imposition of taxes.”
It is open for the Corporation to revise tax once in every five years in accordance with the procedure laid down in the preceding sections.
9. Section 147 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 reads thus:
“147. Rules in Schedule III, – The rules and tables embodied in Schedule III shall be read as part of this chapter.”
It is therefore, for purposes of assessment of property tax and revision of assessment, it is the rules framed and provided in Schedule III have to be followed.
10. Rule 8 provides that the Commissioner after due notice and hearing objections may revise the tax in case of general revision. Rule 9 enables the Commissioner to assess property for the first time or increase the assessment on any property otherwise than in consequence of a general enhancement of the rate at which we property tax is leviable and the same shall be intimated by a special notice which is done in the present case. Rule 10 provides to file objections before the Commissioner for reduction of the tax imposed which is found in the present case wherein the owner has filed objections before the Commissioner. The Commissioner after hearing the owner of the premises determined the annual rental value in respect of the said premises and an order came to be passed as provided in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 17. Rule 18 provides for an aggrieved party to approach the Taxation Appeal Committee for modification or enhancement of assessment of tax as the case may be. In the present case, the owner of the premises has preferred an appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 9.4.1992 reducing the annual rental value. Rule 19 enables the Divisional Commissioner to examine the order passed by the Commissioner or the Standing Committee for Appeals or as the case may be in so far as it relates to assessment of tax or the order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenues of the Corporation. The Corporation preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner in MA No. 2/93-94. In turn, the Divisional Commissioner restored the order of the Commissioner by setting aside the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee. Rule 20 enables an aggrieved party to prefer an appeal before the district Court as against the order passed by the Standing Committee for taxation, finance and appeals or any order of the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 19 to be preferred within thirty days from the date of such decision or order. In the present case, the owner of the premises being aggrieved of the order of the Divisional Commissioner restoring the annual rental value made by the Commissioner has preferred an appeal before the District Court in MA No. 17/94. The learned District Judge considering the location of the premises in question situated at Kunjathbail Village and as no facilities are provided by the Mangalore City Corporation in respect of these buildings, set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner by restoring the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee.
11. It is vehemently contended that the revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable in view of Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules which is redundant. So also Rule 25 is clear that the order of the District Court is final.
12. Rule 22 thus reads:
“The District Court having jurisdiction may if it thinks fit, state a case on any appeal for the decision of the High Court and shall do whenever a question of law is involved, if either the Commissioner or the appellant applies in writing in that behalf within fifteen days from the decision of the District Court and deposits such sum as the District Court thinks necessary to defray the cost of the reference.”
13. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of Rule 22 in the case of DR. (MRS.) SITA BHATEJA’S NURSING HOME v. DISTRICT JUDGE, observed thus:
“6. As far as the first contention is concerned, in our opinion, the matter is well settled. When an appeal or revision lies to a Court which is subordinate to the High Court, under any provision of law, a revision under Section 115 of the CPC lies to this Court (See SHYAMARAJU HEGDE v. VENKATESH BHAT -ILR 1987 KAR 3244). Therefore, we respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that as the revision petition was maintainable, Writ Petition cannot be entertained.”
In the light of the law laid down, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the revision is not maintainable is without any force.
14. Similarly in the case of CHHAGAN LAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE, while considering the provisions of Section 115 CPC, it is observed as follows:
“The second contention is based on Section 149 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. It provides that any appeal shall lie from the decision of the Municipal Commissioner to the District Court, when any dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 provides that the decision of the District Court shall be final. It was submitted that the decision of the District Court was therefore, final and that the High Court was in error in entertaining a Revision Petition. This plea cannot be accepted for, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court has got a power to revise the order passed by Courts subordinate to it. It cannot be disputed that the District Court is a subordinate Court and is liable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.”
Thereby, it is clear that there is no bar to entertain a petition under Section 115 CPC and exercise revisional powers. That apart, in the case supra, that the order passed by the District Court is final which is clear from Sub-section (1) of Section 149. But the revisional powers were not taken away by the said Act. So also, it is similar in the case on hand. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act under Chapter X provides for imposition of tax etc., and it is the rules which provides for revision of assessment and to prefer an appeal to the District Court.
15. Rule 25 reads thus:
“25. Subject to any order of the District Court or the Divisional Commissioner or the decision of the standing Committee for appeals or as the case may be, standing Committee for taxation, finance and appeals, or the orders passed by the Commissioner, as the assessment or demand of any tax shall be final.
Provided that where any assessment or demand is not in accordance with the assessment books, nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a fresh assessment or demand of the tax being made in accordance there with.”
Though it is specific that the order of the District Court is final, but in the light of the decision supra, it makes clear that a revision is maintainable as against the order passed by the Court subordinate to High Court under any provision of law. In that view of the matter, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Commissioner in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI v. BANSI DHAR AND SONS, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as there was a specific bar under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act regarding the matters to be adjudicated and thereby the powers conferred under the Act cannot be taken away by the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the revision is not maintainable under Section 115 CPC is not sustainable.
16. Now coming to the merits of the case, the learned District Judge after considering the report of the Surveyor and the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee has independently arrived at a conclusion that the building in question is situated at a distance of about 10 K.Ms, from the heart of Mangalore City and has also observed that there was no demand for commercial buildings in the vicinity of Sapthagiri Hotel (P) Ltd., wherein Kunjathbail Village has recently come within the purview of Mangalore City Corporation. In that view of the matter, the assessment made by the Taxation Appeal committee is well founded and that there was no need to interfere with the said order by the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, in my opinion, the order of the learned District Judge restoring the order of the Taxation Appeal Committee is well founded and does not call for interference. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act itself provides for revision of tax once in five years. Section 148 is also clear that the Corporation is empowered to revise the assessment from time to time, the present assessment made by the Corporation is half yearly tax for the year 1990 wherein the special notice is dated 6.7.1990. Therefore, the Corporation is at liberty to revise the tax for the subsequent periods.
17. It is unfortunate as to why the Corporation did not initiate any action for revision of the tax for the subsequent periods. Mere pendency of the proceedings itself could not have been a bar for the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merits in this revision.
18. For the foregoing reasons, Point No. 1 is answered in the negative holding that the revision is very well maintainable whereas point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative. The impugned order of the learned District Judge is well founded and does not call for interference. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner for revising the tax for the subsequent period after 1990.
