AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy , J.—The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.48-8-9/1, Visakhapatnam and the same is assessed to tax. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, respondent No.2 herein, proposed to revise the tax by issuing notice, dated 28.07.2010 from Rs.3,338/- to Rs.19,037/-. The petitioner claims to have submitted objections on 15.09.2010. His grievance is that without passing any orders thereon, the respondents issued notice of attachment straightaway on 05.01.2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration.
Respondent No.2 intended to revise the property tax of the premises owned by the petitioner from Rs.3,338/- to Rs.19,037/-. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which applies to respondent No.2, prescribes a detailed procedure either for assessing any property to tax or for revision thereof.
It is, no doubt, true that respondent No.2 issued a notice as contemplated under law. The petitioner submitted his objections. Unless a final order is passed on the basis of the notice so issued, the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay the tax. In case he feels aggrieved by the revision, he can avail the remedy provided for under the Act. There does not exist any justification for proposing to attach the property of the petitioner for recovery of the revised tax amount.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is left open to respondent No.2 to pass orders in pursuance of the notice, dated 05.01.2012, duly taking into account the objections submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be liable to pay the amount that may be indicated in the final order, within four weeks there from, unless any judicial forum passes an order otherwise. There shall be no order as to costs.