Allowed

Mrs. Jaina Bibi, v. Guntur Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC11 Sept 2013WP/2564/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court allowed a petition challenging a municipal corporation tax demand. Relying on a settled principle of law from a related earlier order, the Court held that distress warrants are recoverable only for three years. As the petitioner was ready to pay the outstanding dues for the remaining years, the excessive demand was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned tax demand for the period 1976 to 1995 was set aside.

Mrs. Jaina Bibi, Vs Guntur Municipal Corporation — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.2564 OF 1999

¶4

Date: 11.09.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mrs. Jaina Bibi alias Begumjan

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

And Guntur Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Guntur

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.2564 OF 1999

¶11

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in demanding the property tax for the petitioner’s premises bearing assessment No.14125 situated in Guntur for the period 1976 to 1995, is arbitrary and illegal. The impugned demand is assailed primarily on the ground that the demand for the period from the year 1976 is barred by limitation.

¶13

When the matter is taken up for consideration it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Writ Petition No.2002/1999 filed by the mother of the petitioner in which an identical question was raised, was allowed by this Court by order dated

¶14

21.02.2006 following the settled principle of law that the Corporation is entitled to recover the arrears of tax by way of distress warrant only for a period of three years prior to the date of demand. Accordingly, following the settled legal position the impugned demand is set aside.

¶15

It is observed that while granting interim order pending the writ petition, this Court recorded that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the tax due for the years 1995-1998. The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amounts have already been paid is placed on record.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶18

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶19

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date: 11.09.2013 Mva

Mrs. Jaina Bibi, v. Guntur Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Jaina Bibi, v. Guntur Municipal Corporation

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

D. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Vs Andhra Bank

M/S. Padmini Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue

Chittoory Pradeeth Swamy, Vs State Bank of India, Rep.by its Authorised Officer

M/s.Suryalatha Spinning Mills Ltd., Kalawakurthy, Vs The Licencing officer

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s Sri Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill

D.V. Suresh Vs The Dy. Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional