AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr.Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief :-
"...to pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the inaction on part of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in receiving property tax in respect of petitioner's house bearing M.C.No.8-2-708/7, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admn. 915 sq. yards, in Sy No.129/26, new No.303, from the year 2014 onwards @ Rs 60/- per annum, is highly illegal and arbitrary, consequently, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to receive property tax in respect of petitioner's house bearing M.C.No.8-2-708/7, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admn. 915 sq. yards, in Sy.No.129/26, new No.303, from the year 2014 onwards or Rs.60/- per annum and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice..."
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's property bearing Municipal No.8-2-708/7, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring 915 sq.yards, situated in Sy.No.129/26, New No.303, was duly assessed to property tax by assigning PTIN No.072:6400007183 and pursuant to such assessment, the respondent Corporation collected property tax for the year 2013-14, amounting to Rs.2,047/- vide Receipt No 10100000223345 dated 30.04.2013.
It is further submitted that, thereafter, the respondent Corporation has neither accepted the property tax from the petitioner nor revised the assessment or issued any demand notice for payment of tax, under the influence his neighbour, who has developed animosity towards the petitioner.
It is further contended that once a property has been assessed by allotting a PTIN number, and tax has been collected for the year 2013-14, the Corporation cannot refuse to receive the tax for the subsequent years without following the procedure prescribed under law. Further, if the assessment is proposed to be revised, the respondent-Corporation is required to issue a notice to the petitioner and complete the process of reassessment in accordance with law. Until such reassessment is made, the Corporation ought to have received the admitted tax payable by the petitioner.
Having considered the submissions made and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-Corporation cannot refuse to receive property tax as per the existing assessment, without undertaking reassessment in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to either issue a demand notice in accordance with the existing assessment or, if it proposes to revise the assessment, conduct an inspection of the subject property, by issuing notice to the petitioner and determine a fresh whether and to what extent the petitioner's building is reassessable, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, and thereafter raise the requisite demand. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.