Disposed

Smt.Devisetty Sarada Smitha, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Dec 2012WP/19810/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged arbitrary enhancement of property tax via special notices issued without reasons and prior opportunity of hearing. Court directed Commissioner to finalize revision after personal hearing and restrained coercive recovery pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner directed to finalize tax revision after personal hearing; recovery of enhanced amount restrained pending disposal. Petitioner may appeal under Section 282 of the Act.

Smt.Devisetty Sarada Smitha, Vs The Government of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶3

WP No.19810 of 2012

¶4

Smt. Devisetty Sarada Smitha V

¶5

Govt. of A.P. and others

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶8

WP No.19810 of 2012

¶9

Order : ( Per Sri MSR, J )

¶10

The petitioner herein is the owner of a nonresidential premises with assessment No.27761/A situated at Door No.19-9-20, Surydeverapet, Guntur City falling within the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent Municipal Corporation. For the two half year periods of 2011-2012, the 3^rd respondent Corporation had issued a demand notice demanding property tax at the rate of Rs.10,380/- per half year. On 27.3.2012, the 3^rd respondent-Corporation had issued two special notices proposing to enhance the property tax from Rs.10,380/per half year to Rs.29,930/- per half year.

¶11

The petitioner contends that the said show cause notices do not give any reasons for such enhancement and that the proposed enhancement is irrational, arbitrary and without any basis and that no prior opportunity had been given to the petitioner to contest the said enhancement.

¶12

She made a representation on 29.3.2012 to the Commissioner of the 3^rd respondent Corporation objecting to the enhancement of property tax and requesting him to reconsider the matter . Her representation is still pending with the said authority for consideration.

¶13

The petitioner therefore prays that the special

¶14

notices issued under the provisions of the Act on 27.3.2012 proposing to enhance the tax from Rs.10,380/to Rs.29,930/be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently a direction be issued to the 3^rd respondent-Corporation not to recover the enhanced property tax on the basis of the said notices.

¶15

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent-Corporation stating that the petitioner was issued special notices for enhancement of property tax, that the petitioner had submitted her objections for enhancement by letter dated 29.3.2012 addressed to the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation and that her objections are under consideration by it. It is also stated that against the orders that may be passed by the Corporation, the petitioner has got remedy of appeal under Section 282 of the Act before the Civil Court and in view of existence of the said efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner’s writ petition has to be dismissed .

¶16

It is also contended that the respondent-Corporation has acted in accordance with law , that previously there was a ceiling limit imposed by the Government (vide G.O.Ms.No.864, MA & UD Department, dated 26.11.2007) that property tax on non-residential buildings should not be increased above 50% of the property tax as on 30.11.2007, that the said G.O. was subsequently

¶17

withdrawn vide G.O.Ms.No.88 MA & UD dated 5.3.2011, that thereafter, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.117 MA & UD Department dated 30.3.2011 to take up the revision of property tax with effect from 1.10.2007 and in view of the said G.O, the 3^rd respondent has initiated the process of revision of property tax.

¶18

Heard Sri C.V.L.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent-Corporation.

¶19

In this case, admittedly, a special notice proposing enhancement of property tax has been received by the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted her objections/complaints to the Commissioner, Guntur Municipality on 29.3.2012. These objections have not been disposed of till date. In the counter affidavit filed by 3^rd respondent-Corporation it is stated at para “6” that the objections filed by the petitioner are “under examination and it will be finalised within a fortnight duly following due process”.

¶20

We therefore direct the Commissioner of the 3^rd respondent Corporation to pass orders finalizing the revision of property tax in respect of the property of the petitioner after giving personal hearing to her/her authorized representative after considering the objections filed by her. It is open to the petitioner to challenge any

¶21

order that may be passed by the respondent-Corporation finalizing the revision of property tax under Section 282 of the Act before appropriate Civil Court as per law. Pending disposal of the objections filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, no coercive steps shall be taken by the 3^rd respondent-Corporation to recover the enhanced amount of tax.

¶22

Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶23

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶24

___________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶25

Date : 11-12-12 kk

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶29

¶30

WP No.19812 of 2012

¶31

Date: 11.12.2012

Smt.Devisetty Sarada Smitha, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Devisetty Sarada Smitha, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Farhana, Vs The Superintendent of Police

The S.A.P Its S.T.A.T Hyd Vs M\S.Bahadurmal Chowdary Nizamabad

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Vs Smt K. v.Lakshmi Savitri Devi

Smt.Devisetty Rama Devi, W/o. Devisetty Babu Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shri Shakti Lpg Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle

M/s. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax