Sumanta Kumar Sahu S/O- Late Lochan Sahu filed a consumer case on 20 Aug 2018 against The executive Officer Brajrajnagar Municipality in the Jharsuguda Consumer Court. The case no is CC/33/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Sep 2018.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 33 OF 2018
Sumanta Kumar Sahu,
S/O: Late Lochan Sahu,
RO: Remja, PO- Brajrajnagar,
Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………..…………..……………..…..……. Complainant.
Versus
The Executive Officer,
Brajrajnagar Municipality,
Brajrajnagar,
Dist-Jharsuguda……………………................................................... Opp. Party
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Self.
For the Opp. Parties Biswanath Dutta, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 20.08.2018
Present
1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.
2. Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member.
3. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member (W).
Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member: - The complainant filed this case against the O.P (The Executive Officer, Brajrajnagar Municipality) due to the O.P has charged and demanded excess amount towards holding tax and lighting tax. In brief, the case of complainant is that, the complainant was paying holding tax and lighting tax of Rs.100/- only for every years till the year 2016-17 and last payment made on dtd. 11.04.2017. But for the year 2017-18 the O.P issued a letter to the complainant to pay Rs.528/- only as holding tax and Rs.226/- only as lighting tax. The complainant is a BPL card holder and due to his hardship he asked to the O.P for such excess charging. The O.P sent a valuation report which has no merit as per valuation of 2018 and the O.P has not followed the guidelines mentioned as per Section U/R 516(3) of Odisha Municipal Rules, 1953. On the abovementioned grounds the complainant filed this case with relied documents.
On receipt of notice, the O.P appeared and filed Written Version through his Advocate. The O.P in his written version mentioned and submitted that, the O.P is a Government body under the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Govt. of Odisha and as per Section 153 of the Municipal Act 1950 any objection or appeal on taxation should be filed before District Magistrate after expiration of one month from the date of service of the first notice of demand. As such the case is not maintainable and case is liable to be dismissed.
The matter heard from both the sides. Both the parties filed relevant documents in support of their respective case. The entire dispute is moving around on the issue of whether the valuation on holding tax and lighting tax are properly calculated by the O.P or not. In this context, if we observe the U/S. 153(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 which enumerates as,
“153. Appeal against taxation-(1) Any person, who is dissatisfied with the amount assessed upon him or with the valuation or assessment of any holding, or who disputes his occupation of any holding, or his liability to be assessed, may prefer an appeal to the District Magistrate or to such other officer, as may be empowered by the State Government in his behalf.”
As there is specific and separate provisions are enacted and tribunals are established for preferring appeal or put grievance on disputes of valuation or assessment of any holding and lighting tax, this Hon’ble Forum bind its hands in deciding such disputes. Hence, the present case is dismissed with direction to the complainant to prefer his grievance before the proper competent authority or any proper court of law.
Accordingly the case in hand is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 20th day of August’ 2018. Free copy of this order be communicated to the concerned parties as per rule.
I Agree, I Agree,
Member(W) President Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.