WP/32220/2011 of The Vijayawada Social Club and Literacy Society Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation on 29 December 2011

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action ofrespondent No.1 in issuing the Demand Notice bearingNo.4393/C1/2011 – 2012/1, dated 08.07.2011, to the petitioner inrelation to its property bearing Door No.12-15-39, Ward No.10B, P.J.N.Road, Vijayawada –1, as illegal, arbitrary and against the procedurecontemplated under G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 30.03.2011.

2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition may be stated as follows:

The petitioner is a Society involved in social activities for thewelfare of its members and the public at large. It is the owner ofproperty situated at Door No.12-15-39, Ward No.10B, P.J.N. Road,Vijayawada –1. The building was assessed by respondent No.1 forpayment of property tax duly fixing the property tax at Rs.3,994/- andthe same was paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1. Thereafter,the tax was enhanced by respondent No.1 from Rs.3,994/- toRs.5,983/- in the year 2008. Respondent No.2 issued G.O.Ms.No.88dated 05.03.2011 duly deleting Rules 9 to 11 from the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation (Assessment of Property Tax) Rules, 1990. Asa consequence of issuing G.O.Ms.No.88, respondent No.2 issuedanother G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 26.03.2011, constituting respondentNo.3 to provide assistance and technical guidance to all theMunicipalities and Municipal Corporations in the state of AndhraPradesh for proper assessment and revision of property tax. Afterconstitution of respondent No.3 Board, respondent No.2 issuedanother G.O.Ms.No.117 dated 30.03.2011, duly approving the workplan of respondent No.3 for the year 2011 – 2012. Thereafter,respondent No.1 again increased the property tax for the property of the petitioner vide the impugned notice contrary to the guidelines inG.O.Ms.No.117. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that with regard tothe increase of property tax a board was constituted and Work Plan ofAndhra Pradesh State Property Tax Board for the year 2011 - 2012was prepared and approved, which was appended to G.O.Ms.No.117of Municipal Administration and Urban Development (TC.1)Department, dated 30.03.2011; that the tax for the property of thepetitioner has not been assessed in terms of paragraph Nos.1-2 and 1-3 of the Work Plan appended to G.O.Ms.No.117 and hence, theimpugned notice is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing forrespondent No.1 contended that the impugned notice is only a show-cause notice, whereunder the petitioner was called upon to give anexplanation; that the petitioner had not filed any objections underSection 220 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955; that the revision filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1was rejected; that therefore, an appeal lies to the District Court; andhence, she prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Ordinarily this Court would not interfere with a show-causenotice when an opportunity is given to the petitioner calling forexplanation. As seen from the allegations in the affidavit, against theimpugned notice dated 08.07.2011, the petitioner filed a revisionbefore respondent No.1 and the same was rejected. Therefore, theremedy of the petitioner is elsewhere.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that whileassessing the tax for the property in question the procedurecontemplated under G.O.Ms.No.117 has not been followed. The saidcontention can be raised by the petitioner in the appeal that may be filed by it before the District Court.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to thepetitioner to avail the remedies available to it under law. There shall beno order as to costs.

_______________

K.C.BHANU, J

December 29, 2011AMD/MD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

WRIT PETITION No.32220 OF 2011

AMD/MD

December 29, 2011