Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 15 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners M/s. Popat and Kotecha Property (lessee of the premises at 6, Maulana Shawkat Ali Street, Kolkata) versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and other respondents.
  • Property Details: Commercial building situated at 6, Maulana Shawkat Ali Street, Kolkata‑700073, formerly Collotula Street. Owned by the Official Trustee of West Bengal; lessee under a 99‑year lease commencing 1 August 1982, lease deed dated 24 March 1993.
  • Background: The petitioners challenged KMC’s alleged illegal property‑tax demands, demand‑information and owner’s‑information posted on KMC’s website. They contested the enhancement of the Annual Valuation (AV) from Rs 20,13,900 to Rs 22,15,290 and the issuance of twenty supplementary bills covering the period Q4 2016‑17 to Q4 2022‑23, alleging that no notice, hearing or opportunity to object was provided, contrary to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
  • Prior Proceedings: Earlier writ petitions (W.P. No. 847 of 2013, WPO 354 of 2020, WPO 30 of 2021) resulted in a hearing‑officer order dated 24 December 2019 fixing AVs for various years (1999‑2000, 2005‑06, 2011‑12). The petitioners submitted representations on 4 December 2019 and 23 December 2019, which KMC allegedly ignored.
  • Financial Data:
  • Original AV: Rs 20,13,900 (fully non‑residential).
  • Enhanced AV: Rs 22,15,290.
  • Supplementary bills (2021‑2022) totalling Rs 1,48,36,094.
  • Earlier bills (2020) totalling Rs 68,22,120.
  • Amount retained in suspense account: Rs 1,97,092.
  • Interest rate on delayed payments cited by KMC: 18% per annum.
  • KMC’s Defence: Asserted that the enhancement was part of a city‑wide policy applying standard percentage increases (30% where no assessment since 1980, 20% since 1990, 15% since 2006, 10% where last assessment between 2006‑2011). Claimed the increase was effected through a centralised computer system, with notices under Section 184 issued in July‑August 2022. Initially described the enhancement as a system error and cancelled the bills; later justified it as a policy decision.
  • Legal Provisions Cited: Sections 174, 179, 184, 193, 196, 214, 216 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980; Article 265 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court precedents relied upon include Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2003 SCC 533), Abhishek Karnani v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 99), Abas Nibas Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3609), Commissioner of Central Excise v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2016 SCC 170), and Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1991 SCC 212).
  • Key Observations by the Court:

1. No statutory provision authorises a blanket percentage‑based increase of annual valuation.

2. The alleged policy was never disclosed, documented, or supported by any resolution, circular or delegated legislation.

3. The enhancement was effected retrospectively from Q4 2016‑17 without serving notice, providing an objection docket, or conducting a hearing, violating Sections 184 and related procedural safeguards.

4. The post‑2006 amendment introduced the Unit Area Assessment Scheme, which requires valuations to follow that methodology; KMC’s reliance on the pre‑amendment AV mechanism is untenable.

5. The Court highlighted the constitutional requirement that tax can be levied only by “authority of law” (Art. 265) and that arbitrary administrative actions breach Article 14.

6. The inconsistency in KMC’s explanations (initial error, later policy) further undermines the legitimacy of the enhancement.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that KMC’s enhancement of the Annual Valuation from Rs 20,13,900 to Rs 22,15,290 with retrospective effect from Q4 2016‑17 is unsustainable and illegal.
  • All supplementary property‑tax demands, demand‑information, and owner’s‑information entries arising from the enhancement are quashed and set aside.
  • KMC is directed to restore the valuation to its pre‑enhancement position (Rs 20,13,900).
  • KMC must refund the amount of Rs 1,97,092 retained in the suspense account, or, with the petitioner’s consent, adjust it against future lawful demands, within eight weeks of the order.
  • No order as to costs; parties may obtain a certified copy of the judgment upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Municipal Property Tax, Valuation Dispute