Law:

Section:

  East Pakistan Municipal Committee (Taxation) Rules, 1960, rr. 23, 29 (4) & 8-Basis of evaluation-Annual rental or present value of building plus 7 per cent, for ground rent of land-Assess ment-Remedy against-Objection under r. 8 or appeal thereafter under r. 8 (4) and not under; 29 (4).   Writ-Assertion of fact by petitioner and denial thereof by respondent-Disputed fact cannot be resolved by affidavits alone. JUDGMENT   A. S. CHOWDHURY, J.-The petitioner Mohini Mills Limited, prays for a writ of mandamus on the respondent, Municipal Commit tee of Kushtia, directing it to cancel the assessment of taxes made in respect of holding No. 32 in the town of Kushtia belonging to the petitioner-company. It is stated in the petition that the company was established some 35 years ago for the purpose of manufacturing cotton goods. There have been additions and alterations in the premises in the past and since 1955, although there have been a few additions, it is claimed by the petitioner company that these are not major constructions. The holding in question, it is further averred, was held by the petitioner-company under a former rent-receiver at an annual rental of Rs. 733-14-6 pies. On the acquisition of the rent-receiving interests by the Government, the said rental has been enhanced to a sum of Rs. 1,124.49 paisa. It is further stated that the provisions for amenities as required to be done by a Municipal Committee have not been made by the respondent. The valuation of the premises in 1955 was for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 and the tax imposed on that valuation was Rs. 12,043.76 paisa per annum. That valuation was subsequently increased to Rs. 1,15,000. In 1960, the present Municipal Committee, took over the administration of the previous Municipality under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1959, and an assessor appointed by the respondent fixed a valuation of Rs. 5,84,000. A petition having been presented to the Municipal Committee, it was reduced, on a review of the situation, to a sum of Rs. 2,10,000. Still dissatisfied with the reduced assessment the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner concerned.   The same has…