The High Court set aside an order enhancing municipal property tax due to lack of reasoning and failure to address petitioner's objections, remitting the matter for a personal hearing and a reasoned decision.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to respondent for personal hearing and reasoned order.
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.9844 of 2012
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioner firm is running a Hotel. The property is assessed to municipal tax under Section 197 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘GHMC Act’). Till recently the yearly property tax was Rs.1,62,000/. GHMC appears to have revised the property tax in the corporate area. A special notice dated 29.8.2011 was issued to the petitioner proposing to revise the existing tax of Rs.1,62,000/- to Rs.4,56,233/-. The petitioner submitted objections by way of revision petition under Section 220 of the GHMC Act. The 3rd respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner by impugned order dated 19.3.2012. This is impugned in the writ petition.
Inter alia, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of the 3rd respondent must go for want of reasons. It is now axiomatic that any authority exercising administrative or quasijudicial powers is required to give reasons for decision. Except observing that “facts and objections raised by the petitioner have been examined and the property tax enhanced on the non-residential property is hereby re-fixed”, no reasons are given. Our attention has been invited to the representation dated 31.1.2012 (referred to in the reference entry in the impugned order as representation dated 06.2.2012). Therein the petitioner has raised various objections which were not at all adverted to by 3rd respondent. This has not seriously disputed by the Standing Counsel for GHMC.
In the result, without expressing any opinion on the method and
manner of determining the annual ratable value or the tax revised thereon, the impugned order stands set aside and the matter shall be remitted to the 3rd respondent. He shall afford a personal hearing to the petitioner or their representative and pass a reasoned order considering all the issues/points raised by the petitioner.
The writ petition, at the stage of admission, as also the miscellaneous petition, after hearing the Standing Counsel for GHMC, shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________ V.V.S.RAO, J
______________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
Dated: 10-4-2012
NOTE: Dispatch order copy by 12.04.2012. (By order) DA
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9844 of 2012
10.4.2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9844 of 2012
Date: 10.4.2012
Between: M/s Ambassador Hotel, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.. Respondents
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order enhancing property tax was passed without giving reasons.
Whether the authority considered the objections raised by the petitioner.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Ambassador Hotel
State of A.P. (through Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and 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
