Telangana High Court
N.Srimannarayana vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 5 July, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL MISCELLEAOUS SECOND APPEAL No.6 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the appellant
aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2017 in M.A.No.128 of 2015 on the
file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (Appellate
Authority under the provisions of GHMC Act) to the extent of putting a
condition to deposit 40% of amount demanded in the demand notice,
while allowing the Appeal filed by the appellant herein.
2. Aggrieved by the property tax notice of demand No.TC10/
GHMC/2014-15/721 dated 09.01.2015 received and served on the
appellant on 25.02.2015 issued by the respondent herein demanding a
sum of Rs.4,46,143/- in respect of property bearing Municipal No.8-2-
293/82/A/555/A/B, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033, the appellant
preferred the appeal baring M.A.No.128 of 2015 under Section 282 of
the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short,
'GHMC Act') contending that the property tax notice of demand under
appeal was in pursuance of deliberate harassment being meted out to the
appellant. On the false complaint of the appellant's neighbor, the
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
respondent Corporation earlier issued an impugned notice under Section
461 of the GHMC Act, which was post dated as 28.06.2012 and was
served on the appellant. As against the said notice, the appellant filed
suit against the respondent herein and the neighbor bearing O.S.No.1302
of 2012 on the file of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court and
status-quo order was granted in the said suit, which was pending. The
appellant submitted the information as sought for by the respondent
herein under Section 213 of the GHMC Act under due acknowledgment
dated 25.06.2012 in respect of premises bearing Municipal No.8-2-
293/82/A/555/A/B and premises bearing Municipal No.8-2-
293/82/A/555/A/A. The respondent Corporation issued Special Notice
under Section 220(2)(3) of the GHMC Act fixing the half yearly
property tax for the property covered under the Appeal to Rs.58,438/-
and in respect of other property bearing M.No.8-2-293/82/A/555/A/A to
Rs.17,609/-. The appellant submitted his objections dated 21.07.2012.
Thereafter, there was neither any hearing, any notice nor any order
served on the appellant. In fact, for similar portion the property tax was
only Rs.786/- whereas the appellant was continuously paying a sum of
Rs.5,196/- for the property covered in the appeal and Rs.6,692/- for the
property bearing M.No.8-2-293/82/A/555/A/A, as was fixed in respect
of new construction made by the appellant during the years 2006-2008.
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
The tax paid by the appellant was already excessive, huge, unfair and
unreasonable when compared with the above property for the similar
area/square feet. The respondent was harassing the appellant,
demanding a sum of Rs.4,46,143/-. The increase of the property tax was
vague and did not disclose the valid reasons for such increase. The
respondent in its special notice dated 04.07.2012 (received on
11.07.2012) called for the complaint against the enhancement of
property from Rs.5,196/- to Rs.1,16,876/- per annum, mentioning the
reasons as "G.O.Ms.No.88". In response to the said special notice, the
appellant filed his complaint dated 21.07.2012 as required under Section
221 of GHMC Act. After filing the complaint, the appellant had not
received any communication from the respondent, as such, the appellant
continued to pay the existing tax for the periods mentioned below:
i. Property tax for the year 2012-2013 at the rate of
Rs.5,196/- was paid through pay order dated
17.07.2012 bearing No.853756 drawn on Canara
Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad for the period
from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2012.
ii. Property tax for the year 2013-2014 at the rate of
Rs.5,196/- was paid through pay order dated
20.06.2013 bearing No.854120 drawn on Canara
Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad for the period
from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014.
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
iii. Property tax for the year 2014-2015 at the rate of
Rs.4,837/- was paid through pay order dated
25.04.2014 bearing No.369119 drawn on Canara
Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad for the period
from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015.
Thus the appellant was not due any amount to the respondent
Corporation either towards property tax or towards alleged arrears of
property tax till 31.03.2015. The complaint filed by the appellant
against the special notice dated 21.07.2012 had not been disposed off in
the presence of the appellant as required under Section 223 of GHMC
Act. The increase of property tax and notice of demand were utterly
against the Principles of Natural Justice. No date of hearing was
communicated to the appellant or served any notice on him in that
regard, as per the provisions of Section 222 of GHMC Act and the
complaint filed by appellant had not been disposed of as per the
provisions of GHMC Act.
3. The respondent Corporation on the other hand, contended that the
assessment of tax for the schedule property was reasonable in view of its
location and there was no basis for filing the appeal by the appellant and
the appeal was liable to be dismissed with costs.
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
4. On considering the contentions of both the learned counsel, the
learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad observed that
the respondent had not followed the procedure laid under Sections 220
to 223 of the GHMC Act before confirming the annual property tax. As
per the provisions of Sections 220 to 223 of GHMC Act, when any tax
demand was made, the party who was affected by the same had to be
given an opportunity to make a representation by way of lodging
objections to the said assessment and the Municipal Authorities have to
fix a date of hearing on the said objections and then hear the owner of
property on the objections raised by them, but no material was filed to
show that the respondent followed the said procedure and only after
following the procedure issued the demand notice on 09.01.2015, as
such, concluded that there were irregularities on the part of the
respondent in claiming the property tax amount as shown in the demand
notice and remitted the matter back to the respondent Corporation to
assess the tax afresh in accordance with the procedure laid down under
Sections 221 to 223 of the GHMC Act, but imposed a condition that the
appellant shall pay 40% of the amount demanded in the demand notice.
5. Aggrieved by such condition imposed upon him, the appellant
preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
1. The Court below ought to have considered that, when
admittedly there was no counter filed by the respondent
Corporation or any documents, the Court below should
not have put condition to deposit 40% of the amount
demanded in the demand notice.
2. The appellant submits that though the demand notice was
set aside, the lower court erred in imposing condition of
depositing 40% amount for further proceedings by the
Municipal Corporation authorities, instead the lower
court ought to have directed the respondent to adjust the
amount already paid in part in pursuance of its interim
orders.
6. Heard Sri Manik Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri S. Vamsidhar, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC representing
the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the condition to
pay 40% of the amount demanded in the demand notice at the time of
final disposal of the appeal was illegal. Only before hearing the appeal,
such conditions, could be imposed and relied upon the judgment of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Alladi Venkateswarlu Vs.
Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal 1.
2002 (1) ALD 861
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
8. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation on the
other hand contended that the appellant had not made payment as per
the orders of the Court in M.A.No.128 of 2015 and disobeyed the same.
The appellant was paying property tax at the rate of Rs.5,196/- as part
payment to the commercial usage property occupied with private
offices admeasuring 1,000 Sq. feet situated in Jubilee Hills locality. As
per Act 15 of 2013, Section 225(4)(ii) of GHMC Act, "such assessment
or reassessment or correction of records shall not relate to a period
earlier than the five half years immediately preceding the current half
year."
9. In view of the Court's order, again the respondent approached the
appellant for payment of property tax dues pending from the year 2012.
The appellant furnished the building permission copy issued vide
BPS.No.BPS/10338/CZ/12/08 dated 22.07.2009 and also participated in
joint inspection for taking re-measurements of the property bearing door
No.8-2-293/82/A/555/A/B. Accordingly, the respondent arrived the
yearly property tax of Rs.33,244/-. The property tax in respect of above
commercial usage property had been reduced and re-fixed from
Rs.1,16,876/- to Rs.33,244/- with effect from 01.04.2020. Accordingly,
a Speaking Order was served to the appellant with all details on property
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
tax measurements. The same was acknowledged by the appellant on
21.12.2022. But even after receiving the same, he was not paying the
tax at the rate assessed and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand contended
that re-assessment could not be put to retrospective effect. Though
reassessment was conducted, but the same was also re-fixed to an
amount of Rs.33,244/- with effect from 01.04.2020 retrospectively and
relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in Valluri Basavaiah Chowdary and Brothers Vs. Vijayawada
Municipal Corporation 2 on the aspect that Municipal tax cannot be
levied with retrospective effect unless expressly authorized by the Act.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment
of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in The Himayatnagar
Rate-payers Association, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. The Government
of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors. 3 wherein also it was held
that:
"...There is no scope for collecting tax after
determining rateable value after enquiry into
complaints retrospectively. The only retrospectivity
which is given by the Act is for the same financial
year to which the book relates and which is
2002 (1) ALD 276
W.P.Nos.243 of 1967 and Batch.
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
authenticated during the course of the financial year.
Thus although the authentication, even if made on the
last day of the financial year, the liability will be
deemed to have commenced from the beginning of
that financial year. No greater retrospectivity than
what the Act has given can be given. There is no
scope for such construction."
12. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that as
there was no dispute on the re-assessment or on the rate of tax assessed
on re-assessment and appellant also participated in the joint inspection
for taking re-measurements of the property, sought to give a direction to
the appellant to pay the tax atleast from 01.04.2022 from the date of re-
assessment.
13. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and after
going through the impugned order passed by the Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, as the respondent Corporation had not
followed the procedure laid down under Sections 220 to 223 while
issuing the demand notice dated 09.01.2015, setting aside the said notice
by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court is considered as
proper, but imposing a condition to deposit 40% of the amount
demanded while passing the final decree is considered as illegal and not
supported by any law or procedure, as such, the said condition is liable
to be set aside. As the re-assessment was conducted in the presence of
Dr.GRR,J
cmsa_6_2018
the appellant and the respondent had arrived the yearly property tax of
the appellant as Rs.33,244/-, the appellant is directed to pay the said tax
prospectively from the date of assessment i.e., from 01.04.2022
onwards, but not retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2020, as per the
judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Valluri
Basavaiah Chowdary and Brothers Vs. Vijayawada Municipal
Corporation (2 supra) and in The Himayatnagar Rate-payers
Association, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. The Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors. (3 supra).
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the judgment
and decree passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad in M.A.No.128 of 2015 dated 13.06.2017 to the effect of
imposing condition of depositing 40% of the amount demanded in the
demand notice.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J
Date: 05.07.2024
ss
