The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging property tax demand notices. The court held that since the notices sought payment of arrears and an effective alternative remedy under Section 282(1) exists, it was not proper to interfere.
The writ petition and W.P.M.P were disposed of without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.433 of 2012
Dated:23.04.2012
Between:
Shamshad Begum, And others.
Petitioners
And
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, And another.
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.433 of 2012
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioners, statedly, who are joint owners of property in Seetharampet, Hyderabad, filed the instant writ petition challenging the two demand notices issued under Section 268 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (the Act). By these two notices, the petitioners were asked to pay Rs.4,37,369/- and Rs.2,53,760/- for two premises bearing Nos.14-1-149/1 and 14-1-149/2
respectively. They mainly contend that these two demand notices were not preceded by the special revision notices contemplated under Section 222 of the Act, and therefore, the demand is unauthorised and illegal.
The petitioners approached this Court when the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) initiated restraint proceedings to recover the tax and put seals on the premises. This Court at the stage of preliminary hearing on 05.01.2012 directed the respondents to deseal the premises and movables on condition of the petitioners depositing Rs.75,000/-. It is now brought to our notice that the said amount has been paid.
Counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for GHMC made their submissions. The Standing Counsel would submit that after the property tax enhance in 2004, the petitioners never raised any objection and the demand notices were issued for demanding the arrears of tax. He would submit that GHMC has kept property tax dues on its website, and the tax payers are expected to know the arrears and note the dues. The petitioners intentionally avoided the payment of tax.
A perusal of the two impugned notices would show that they were issued only to collect the arrears of tax. The counter averment that the property tax was enhanced with effect from 01.04.2004 remains uncontroverted. From this an inference can be drawn that the petitioners filed this case on wrong impression without verifying the factual position. Be that as it is, when the petitioners now challenge the demand made, they have an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, under Section 282(1) of the Act. If so advised, they may avail the said remedy. As the demand is for payment of arrears of tax, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in the matter.
The Writ Petition as also the W.P.M.P, with the above observations, shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no
order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
23.04.2012 vs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with tax demand notices for arrears when an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available.
Whether the issuance of demand notices without preceding revision notices under Section 222 makes the demand illegal when seeking arrears.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shamshad Begum, And others
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department
V.V.S.RAO
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
