Allowed

M/s. Elite Engineers, a partnership firm v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Commission

Telangana HC6 Nov 2012WP/32995/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a demand notice for property tax arrears and penalty issued under Section 268 of the GHMC Act. The court held that service of the special notice on the petitioner's counsel constituted effective service, allowing the petitioner to submit objections within ten days before the final assessment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice was quashed. The petitioner was directed to submit objections to the proposal for enhancement within ten days. The Corporation was directed to pass final assessment orders a

M/s. Elite Engineers, a partnership firm Vs Greater… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.32995 of 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶4

Heard Sri Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘GHMC').

¶5

The challenge in the Writ Petition is to a notice of demand issued under Section 268 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner to remit Rs.33,34,451/- constituting arrears upto August 2012, current demand 2012-13 and penalty upto August, 2012. This notice is challenged inter alia on the ground that no special notice for enhancement of the property tax was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned demand notice incorporating elements of enhanced property tax.

¶6

On oral instructions, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC states that an attempt to serve the special notice on the petitioner could not fructify on account of obstructive strategies adopted by employees of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the assessment for enhancement of property tax was finalized and the impugned demand notice issued. Learned Standing Counsel also states that a special notice was served on one Mr.Jainath Prasad, purported to be an employee of the petitioner, which assertion is however denied by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that it has no Jainath Prasad on its rolls.

¶7

In the facts and circumstances, without going into the avoidable controversy and investigation as to whether Jainath Prasad is an employee of the petitioner and the special notice was duly served on the company qua

¶8

service on Jainath Prasad, we consider it appropriate to record that the special notice for enhancement of the property tax served on the learned counsel for the petitioner by the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC today constitutes effective service of such notice on the petitioner.

¶9

The impugned demand notice is quashed. The petitioner shall within ten days’ time from today submit its objections to the proposal for enhancement of the property tax. The respondent-Corporation after receiving any such objections, if filed within the time stipulated herein, shall pass final orders of assessment of property tax; and initiate further steps for recovery on the basis of such proceedings.

¶10

The Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission as above after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties; but in the circumstances without costs.

¶11

_______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶12

___________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶13

06^th November 2012 DR

M/s. Elite Engineers, a partnership firm v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Elite Engineers, a partnership firm v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Commission

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

Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary

M/s. Kola Venkata Raju, Vs Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-Iii Vs M/s. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Agricultural Market Committee

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Agricultural Market Committee

M/s. Gmmco Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its