Allowed

Mr. P. Narsing Rao, v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its

Telangana HC8 Feb 2013WP/3721/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the owners of a building challenged a property tax demand notice issued despite pending objections to a proposed tax revision. The High Court held that the tax authorities must first consider and dispose of the objections before enforcing recovery of the increased amount.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners for recovery of property tax pursuant to the demand notice dated 29.1.2013 until the objections are considered and disp

Mr. P. Narsing Rao, Vs Greater Hyderabad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶4

W.P.No.3721 of 2013

¶5

JUDGMENT:

¶6

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

¶7

Heard Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C. Damoder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioners is that a demand notice dated 29.1.2013 was issued by the 1^st respondent asking the petitioners to remit Rs.11,33,622/- towards property tax for the period upto 31.3.2013, eventhough the objections dated 10.12.2012 submitted to the 2^nd respondent, in response to the special notice for revision of property tax dated 27.11.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent, was not considered or disposed of by the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

The petitioners are owners of building bearing No.13-3-10, Hanuman Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad. The said building was being assessed to property tax from time to time since its construction in the year 2004. The

¶10

petitioners contend that they have been paying the taxes regularly and had last paid Rs.1,85,962/- on 25.4.2012 towards property tax for the period ending 31.3.2013 and were informed that there were no arrears of tax as on 5.5.2012.

¶11

While so, the 2^nd respondent served a special notice dated 27.11.2012 under Section 220(2) and (3) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 proposing to revise the property tax from Rs.1,85,962/- to Rs.13,12,146/-, nearly increasing the tax by 7 times and asking the petitioners to file objections to the said proposal. After receiving the said notice on 28.11.2012, the petitioners filed objections in person on 10.12.2012 and also sent the same by Registered Post with Acknowledgment due to the 2^nd respondent which was received on 10.12.2012 by the latter. The petitioners contend that without disposing of the objections filed by the petitioners, the 1^st respondent has served the impugned demand notice directing the petitioners to pay Rs.11,33,622/- towards property tax upto 31.3.2013; that the respondents are bound to consider the objections filed by the petitioners to the proposed revision of property tax mentioned in the special

¶12

notice dated 27.11.2012; and that pending consideration of the same by the 2^nd respondent, the impugned demand notice should not be allowed to be enforced by the respondents.

¶13

The Standing Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the objections filed by the petitioners on 10.12.2012 to the special notice dated 27.11.2012 have to be considered by the respondents and the respondents cannot recover the amounts specified in the special notice without disposing of the objections filed by the petitioners.

¶14

Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to first consider the objections dated 10.12.2012 filed by the petitioners to the special notice dated 27.11.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent proposing to revise the property tax in respect of the petitioners property and that pending consideration of the said objections, the respondents cannot recover the amount mentioned in the impugned demand notice dated 29.1.2013.

¶15

For the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to take

¶16

any coercive steps against the petitioners for the recovery of property tax pursuant to the demand notice dated 29.1.2013 issued by the respondents till the objections of the petitioners are considered by the 2^nd respondent and disposed of by him or if already disposed of by him, till the decision of the 2^nd respondent is communicated to the petitioners. No costs.

¶17

____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶18

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 8-02-2013 KK

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶20

AND

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶22

W P No.3721 of 2013

¶23

8-2-13

Mr. P. Narsing Rao, v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. P. Narsing Rao, v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its

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. Donthala Purnachanra Rao Civil Contractor, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/ s. Penna Cement Industriies Ltd, Vs The Union of India

M/s.Bharathi Industries, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii

M/s Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Central Excise

M/s.Indian Tobacco Traders, Partnership Firm Vs The Superintendent of Central Excise

M/s Indian Tobacco Traders Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of