Self-assessment returns filed under Unit Area Assessment system preclude the right to prior hearing for valuations.

The petitioner, owner of premises no. 190B, Manicktala Main Road, challenged supplementary tax bills issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) which enhanced the annual valuation of the property for two periods: 1/2023-24 (Rs. 24,34,160/-) and 4/2023-24 (Rs. 29,33,320/-)

The petitioner had entered into agreements for the erection of advertisement hoardings and a dental clinic on the premises

The petitioner argued that payment of advertisement tax precluded further enhancement of annual valuation and that the revision violated natural justice

The KMC contended that the revised valuation was based on self-assessment returns and revised returns filed by the petitioner himself under the Unit Area Assessment (UAA) System

Records indicated the petitioner was personally present during the online submission of these self-assessment forms

1. Whether the enhancement of annual valuation and issuance of supplementary bills without a prior hearing violated the principles of natural justice under the KMC Act and 2017 Rules

2. Whether the municipal authority has the power to enhance annual valuation for property tax purposes when the assessee has already paid advertisement tax for the same structures

Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which specifies circumstances for the revision of annual valuation

Section 182A regarding the filing of self-assessment returns

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Self-Assessment System, Manner and Forms) Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 3 (form of return), Rule 4 (consequences of filing/non-filing), and Rule 6 (scrutiny and adjustment of tax), which shift the onus of property taxation to the individual assessee

The court distinguished Asian Leather Ltd. v. KMC (2007) regarding unauthorized levies and PS Group Reality Ltd. v. KMC (2012) regarding valuations determined dehors the statute

The court reasoned that under the UAA System, the duty to file accurate returns lies with the assessee.

Rule 4(4) and 4(5) of the 2017 Rules mandate that when a revision circumstance arises (such as the new dental clinic or hoardings), the owner must indicate this in the return, and the Commissioner shall generate bills based on that declaration

The court found that because the revised bills were generated directly from the petitioner's own self-type online submissions and declarations, the statutory scheme did not require a separate hearing

The court further clarified that advertisement tax is distinct from property tax; income derived from agreements for commercial use (hoardings and clinics) constitutes a valid basis for property tax valuation regardless of advertisement tax payments

The court held that since the valuation was based on the petitioner's own self-assessment and revised returns, there was no procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice

No order as to costs was made