Remanded

Sonia Road lines, Prop. Harinder Kour, v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC5 Dec 2012WP/34943/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order in two writ petitions challenging final demand notices for enhanced property tax. The court held that erroneous invocation of a different Act did not invalidate proceedings but quashed the demand notices because the authority failed to consider the petitioners' objections before issuance. The matter was remanded for disposal of objections.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notices dated 07.05.2012 and 08.05.2012 were quashed. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioners' objections to the special notice, pass orders, communicate the same,

Sonia Road lines, Prop. Harinder Kour, Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.34943 & 35239 of 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):

¶4

Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. P. Mohan, the learned Standing Counsel for APIIC.

¶5

The two writ petitions in substance challenge the final demand notices issued in May, 2012 without considering the petitioners’ objections lodged in opposition to the special notices issued for enhancement of the property tax.

¶6

The facts in W.P.No.34943 of 2012 are illustrative of the facts in both the writ petitions and therefore they are adverted to. W.P.No.34943 of 2012:

¶7

The two writ petitioners herein own adjacent premises in Autonagar, Hyderabad. Initially on 07.12.2011 a demand notice was issued indicating enhanced property tax levy since October, 2011 i.e., enhancement of property tax from Rs.10,711/- to Rs.19,412.28 ps. By a response dated 08.02.2012 sent through counsel, the petitioners lodged objections to the enhancement of the property tax inter alia on the ground that the enhancement was effected without any special notice for assessment/revision of the property tax, as required by law. Thereafter the respondent appears to have aborted the proceedings for enhancement of property tax and went into hibernation on that aspect.

¶8

On 07.02.2012, the respondent issued a special notice proposing enhancement of property tax to Rs.21,422.88 ps. The petitioners lodged objections thereto on 01.03.2012 including by disputing the monthly ratable value and annual ratable value as disclosed in the special notice.

¶9

However, without considering the petitioners objections, the respondent issued the demand notices dated 07.05.2012 and

¶10

08.05.2012 (in respect of the two petitioners respectively) setting out levy of enhanced property tax as per the special notice dated 07.02.2012.

¶11

A similar matrix of grievances is presented in the other Writ Petition No.35239 of 2012 as well.

¶12

Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned demand notice and the antecedent special notice on several grounds including that the special notice was issued in purported exercise of powers under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, while referring to G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 05.03.2011, which is a Government Order issued in respect of amendment/substitution of rules issued in exercise of powers under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the 1955 Act’) and asserts that this incongruity vitiates in the special notice itself.

¶13

It is settled principle that invocation of a wrong provision of law would not invalidate proceedings validly initiated by competent authority. The respondent is the statutorily authorized agency for levying property tax under the provisions of the 1955 Act. The fact that the premises of the petitioners fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is also not in dispute. In the circumstances, notwithstanding the erroneous invocation of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 in the special notice dated 07.02.2012, we consider the special notices as having been legitimately issued under provisions of the 1955 Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance and is accordingly rejected.

¶14

However, the respondent is required to consider the petitioners objections submitted on 01.03.2012 to the special notice dated 07.02.2012 (in respect of W.P.No.34943 of 2012) and pass orders thereon duly communicated to the petitioners and only thereafter issue a demand notice in conformity with the decision taken by the

¶15

respondent on duly considering the petitioners’ objections. The same infirmity is present in the other writ petition. Since this sequence of due process has not been followed, the demand notices dated 07.05.2012 and 08.05.2012 issued in respect of the petitioners in the two writ petitions are quashed with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of the objections lodged by the petitioners to the special notices proposing enhancement of property tax; to pass orders thereon; to communicate the decisions taken by the respondent on the objections of the respective petitioners; and thereafter to issue a demand notice inconformity with the decision taken on the objections of the petitioners.

¶16

The writ petitions are disposed of as above, at the stage of admission. In the circumstances however, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶18

Date: 05.12.2012

¶19

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶22

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

¶23

WRIT PETITION Nos.34943 & 35239 of 2012 (order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶24

Date: 05.12.2012

¶25

Sonia Road lines, Prop. Harinder Kour, v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia Road lines, Prop. Harinder Kour, v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

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

M/s. Durga Wine Industries, Vijayawada, rep. by its Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy S/o Late M. Ram Reddy, Vs The Commissioner Ghmc, Tank bund, Hyderabad.

The Vivekananda Co-operative House Building Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Hill County Home Owners Welfare Association, Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Dasari Neelima, Vs The Sub Registrar

Hill County Home Owners Welfare Association Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax