AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the revision notice issued by the respondent/corporation proposing to revise the property tax in respect of the petitioner''s property with effect from first half of the year 2001 2002.
According to the petitioner, the respondent has no jurisdiction to effect revision of property tax with retrospective effect, more particularly when the premises belongs to a public charitable trust which has been exempted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that there is no increase in the sq.ft. of the building and the tax was revised stating the area as 3340 sq.ft. instead of 1940 sq.ft. when in 2004 the tax was reduced after verification. Therefore, it is submitted that the increase of tax with effect from first half 2001-2002 is unsustainable. Further, the petitioner stated that as against the increase, an objection was filed by the petitioner on 04.06.2007 and a copy of the said objection has been filed in the typed set of papers. The petitioner has reiterated that they are Charitable Trust and their tenants are staying in the premise for more than 40 years paying very nominal rent at old rates and the petitioner is unable to increase the rent because the building does not have all modern amenities and it is in dilapidated condition and that the building was to be taken over by the Highways Department for the purpose of widening the road.
Further, it is submitted that the annual value of the building was arbitrarily increased by 100% vide notice dated 05.01.2001 and the petitioner filed their objection for the said notice dated 26.02.2001 and based on their objection, the annual value of the building was reduced from Rs.74,802/- to Rs.46,792/- by proceedings dated 04.01.2004. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no reason for revising the tax once again with effect from 1st half of 2001 2002, especially when there is no improvements done to the building for sixty years and as per the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, fair rent once fixed cannot be revised by the landlord unless there is no improvement made in the building. Therefore, it is submitted that the proposed enhancement of tax on the basis of rental value of Rs.77,150/- is arbitrary and does not confirm to the procedure for fixing the fair rent. Further, the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of this Court in case of Chellammal Vs. Alandur Municipality, and a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of The Guntur Municipal Council Vs. The Guntur Town Rate Payers'' Association etc., . Further, it is stated that the worksheet given by the respondent does not disclose the date of inspection, land value per sq.ft., age of the building, etc. and these are all in clear violation of the provisions of the Statute and they are the basic requirements to be fulfilled for the purpose of fixing the annual rental value of the building.
It is seen that the petitioner''s objection has not been considered till date and since the respondent was threatening destructive action, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this writ petition.
At the time when the writ petition was entertained, an interim order was granted by this court on 22.01.2010 for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the interim order has not been extended but however, the writ petition is pending.
After hearing the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served if the writ petition is still kept pending. Due to efflux of time , there would have been subsequent developments in the matter. In any event, the respondent have to justify their action seeking to retrospectively revise the annual rental value of the building, especially when the petitioner''s earlier objection was considered and the annual rent value of the building was reduced by order dated 04.01.2004.
In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings are quashed leaving it open to the respondent corporation to conduct fresh inspection of the petitioner''s building, after giving notice to the petitioner and thereafter proceed, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.