Dismissed

Dr. Annepu Nirmala v. The Anakapalle Municipality

Telangana HC17 Apr 2012WP/10747/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the enhancement of property tax by the Anakapalle Municipality and the alleged inability to file a representation due to delay. The Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to appeal to the Appellate Commissioner under Rule 22 of the Taxation and Finance Rules.

What did the court decide?

Lawyer liberty to approach Designated Appellate Commissioner under Rule 22(1) of Taxation and Finance Rules for redressal against notice of demand.

Dr. Annepu Nirmala Vs The Anakapalle… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10747 of 2012

¶3

Dated:17.04.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dr.Annepu Nirmala.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And The Anakapalle Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.10747 of 2012

¶12

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶13

The petitioner is running a Nursing Home in premises bearing door No.12-4-38/A. A part of it is used for residence. It is assessed to property tax in Assessment No.1087016390. The half yearly tax was fixed at Rs.15,376/- with effect from 01.10.2007. Presumably during quinquennial revision undertaken under Rule 8 of the Taxation and Finance Rules (Schedule II to the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, which is hereafter referred to as, the Act), the respondent proposed to enhance the property tax to Rs.32,568/-. A notice as required under Rule 11 of the Taxation and Finance Rules was issued requiring the petitioner to make an application raising objections within

¶14

sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 19.01.2002 was issued under Rule 29 of the Taxation and Finance Rules read with Section 91 of the Act requiring the petitioner to pay the half yearly tax, the arrears, and penalty thereon. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the representation made by the petitioner objecting for enhancement on 31.03.2012 has not been disposed of. Secondly, he would submit that Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Assessment of Taxes) Rules, 1990, issued in G.O.Ms.No.438, dated 29.10.1990, bar the enhancement exceeding 50%; those Rules were omitted by G.O.Ms.No.89, dated 05.03.2011, and even thereafter, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 30.03.2011, approving the work plan of the Andhra Pradesh State Property Tax Board whereunder the property tax cannot be enhanced more than 75% for residential buildings and 100% for non-residential buildings which are twenty five years old and those buildings which are less than twenty five years, the property enhancement should be restricted to 150%. Lastly he submits that in case the Court is not agreeing with the submission, the petitioner may be given liberty to prefer an appeal under Rule 22 of the Schedule II of the Act.

¶16

The submission that the representation was not disposed of in contravention of the Rules cannot be accepted. Rule 11 of Schedule II requires the person aggrieved by proposed enhancement to make a representation within sixty days. The notice of demand was issued on 30.09.2011 whereas the representation was statedly made on 31.03.2012 beyond the period prescribed by the statute. The submission is, therefore, rejected. Insofar as the other issue is concerned, as the petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Rule 22 of the Taxation and Finance Rules, there cannot be any objection. Therefore,

¶17

we leave open the question and give liberty to the petitioner to approach the designated Appellate Commissioner under Rule 22(1) of the Taxation and Finance Rules and seek redressal against the notice of demand.

¶18

The Writ Petition, subject to the above observations, as also the W.P.M.P shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶19

________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶20

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶21

17.04.2012 vs

Dr. Annepu Nirmala v. The Anakapalle Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Annepu Nirmala v. The Anakapalle Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.V.V. Nageshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vpl Projects Pvt. Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

The Mothers Integral Educational Society, Vs The Gram Panchayat

M/s Sri Vishnu Enterprises Vs The Authorized Officer

Gorthi Viswanatham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kumar Metallurgical Corporation Limited Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer