Mr. Amin Mohammed vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4055 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                  WRIT PETITION No. 24346 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

" to pass an order, to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in enhancing the property tax of the petitioner premises bearing Shop No. 7/A, Block 'A' Ground Floor, measuring 268.13 square feet in Sharma Complex with undivided share in the land 10 square yards out of 3330 square yards in Sy.Nos. 123, 124, 161 and 170 situated at Punjagutta, Hyderabad having PTIN No. 1100632574 from Rs.9033/- to Rs.19,084/- and raising a demand of Rs.51,291/- towards arrears of the property tax for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 without issuance of any notice to the petitioner and having issued the payment receipts in favour of the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to collect a sum of Rs.9033/- towards the property tax for the premises bearing Shop No. 7/A Block 'A' Ground Floor, with a plinth area of 268.13 square feet in Sharma Complex with undivided share in the land 10 sq. yards out of 3330 sq. yards in Sy.No.123, 124, 161 and 170 situated at Punjagutta, Hyderabad bearing PTIN No. 1100632574 ...."

2. Sri Pranay Shohini, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and

possessor of the subject premises which he has purchased by

way of a registered sale deed. It is submitted that the petitioner

is regularly paying the property tax to the respondents and the

petitioner has went to mee-seva centre to pay the property tax

for the year 2022-23 and to avail an early bird payment rebate

of 5%, the system has showed that the property tax of the

petitioner has been enhanced from Rs.9033/- to Rs.19,084/-

without issuance of notice to the petitioner. It is also submitted

that further the system has shown arrears of Rs.51,291/- for

the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 for which the petitioner has

already paid the property tax and the respondents had issued

receipts to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the

property tax of the petitioner has been enhanced with

retrospective effect. According to the learned counsel, the

respondents have no such power to revise the tax retrospectively

and secondly, without issuing any notice, they cannot enhance

the tax. Learned counsel submits that even as per the

provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, the

respondent municipality has no such authority. He relied on the

order passed in Valluri Basavaiah Chowdary v. Vijayawada

Municipal Corporation1, wherein this Court has held that the

respondents cannot revise the tax of the previous year and levy

the revised tax and it would amount to collecting the tax twice

over for the same period. Further, learned counsel has relied on

2002 (1) ALD 276

the order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 15002 of

1993 and batch, dated 29.12.1994. He submits that the

Division Bench has elaborately discussed about the procedure

that has to be followed while revising the tax. He also submits

that without considering either the provisions of the

Municipalities Act or the orders passed by this Court, the

respondents have revised the tax.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

Corporation Sri N. Ashok Kumar filed a counter-affidavit. He

submits that as per Section 225(4) of the Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, if at any time it appears to the

Commissioner that any person or property has been

inadvertently omitted from the assessment records or

inadequately or improperly assessed relating to any tax, or a

clerical or arithmetical error is committed in the records

maintained in relation to such assessment, he may assess or

reassess or correct such errors, as the case may be. He submits

that deriving source from this provision, the respondents have

revised the tax. It is submitted that in respect of the petitioner's

premises it is not totally assessed and only a part of it is

assessed. Further, it is submitted that the judgments, which are

relied on by the petitioner, are not applicable to the present

facts of the case for the reason that Section 225(4) amendment

was of the year 2013. Learned Standing Counsel submits that

the respondents have already issued a notice and along with the

counter he has filed the notice said to have been issued to the

petitioner. The said notice is purported to have been issued

under Section 220(2)(3) of the Act, as amended vide Act No. 25

of 1994 and therein they have mentioned several details about

assessment number, name, door number, zone, sub-zone,

locality name, existing property tax, revised, net arrival, reasons

for revision, notice issue date, for financial year 2021-22 and

then they have given the details of the tax. In the column of

reasons for revision, it is mentioned as 'revision' and on that a

signature was shown. According to the learned Standing

Counsel, the said notice is served on the petitioner. He submits

that when a notice was issued, if the petitioner has any

objection, he shall file his objections and if he is aggrieved by

any of the enhancement, revision of tax, he can approach the

civil Court under Section 282 of the Act. He further submits

that without doing such exercise, the petitioner has come up

before this Court by filing this Writ Petition. Along with the

counter, the respondents have categorically mentioned on what

basis, the tax is enhanced from Rs.9,033/- to Rs.19,084/-.

4. The admitted facts are that till the year 2021-22,

the petitioner was paying tax of Rs.9,033/- and the receipts that

are filed by the petitioner shows that there are no arrears.

When the petitioner wanted to pay the advance tax for 2022-23,

he came to know that the tax is enhanced from Rs.9,033/- to

Rs.19,084/- and also it shows arrears from 2018 onwards. The

learned Standing Counsel relies on Section 225(4) (1) of the Act

and submits that the Commissioner has every authority and

jurisdiction to revise the tax. The very same clause specifies that

'no action shall be taken where it involves an increase in the

assessment, unless the person affected is afforded an

opportunity to show cause against the proposed action'.

According to the learned Standing Counsel, what has been filed

along with the counter is a notice which this Court is not able to

accept and appreciate the said contention. By any stretch of

imagination, the said piece of paper filed along with the counter

cannot be termed as a 'notice'. The whole purpose of issuing a

notice, as contemplated under Section 225(4)(2), is that the

affected person should know the reason for enhancing and also

it should also contain for what he should submit his objections

and what is the time and date fixed to send those objections,

any personal hearing is there or not. The purported notice said

to have been issued in compliance of Section 225(4) of the Act

do not contain any of the details and without following the said

procedure, the respondent Corporation cannot say that they

have followed the procedure under Section 225(4).

5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to issue a notice to the petitioner containing all the

reasons, which the petitioner is supposed to know, for

enhancement or revision of tax by giving a reasonable time to

the petitioner to submit his objections. If necessary, personal

hearing shall be given and thereafter, the respondents can pass

appropriate orders. Till such time no coercive steps shall be

taken. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

-----------------------------------

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 04th August 2022

ksld