Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 258 (MAD)

The Commissioner v. P. Issac Jebamani

2004-02-23

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in fixing the half yearly property tax for the house bearing door No.C-23, 24th Cross Street, Maharajanagar, Tirunelveli, owned by the respondent herein at Rs.488/- from 1.10.1998 by allowing the Appeal Against Taxation Appeal No.4 of 1999 preferred by the respondent herein against the Appeal No.259 of 1999 dated 20.9.1999 on the file of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation. 2. During the pendency of the Appeal Against Taxation Appeal No.4 of 1999, the owner of the property, viz., Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani died and the respondent herein has been added as her legal representative. 3. Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani was a retired teacher and she was the owner of the said premises. After her retirement, she settled in the said house in 1996 and before that, the house was let out to tenant till 1993-1994 and the half yearly tax was fixed at Rs.1,114/-. Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani sought to fix the half yearly tax at the rate of Rs.488/- on the basis of the Special Notice served on her. 4. The Taxation Appellate Tribunal on finding that the half yearly tax as fixed at Rs.1,114/- is as per the resolution of Council dated 4.3.1999, declined to interfere with the half yearly property tax fixed at Rs.1,114/- and to reduce the same at Rs.488/- as claimed by the late Smt.Susila Issac Jebamani. Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani preferred appeal before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, before whom, it was mainly urged that as per Special Notice, the half yearly tax is to be fixed at Rs.488/- on the basis of square feet and as such, the claim fixing half yearly tax at Rs.1,114/- cannot be said to be proper. It is also brought to the notice of the learned Principal District Judge, that inasmuch as the owner Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani occupied the house in 1996 after vacating the tenant, the half yearly tax fixed is very much excessive. The Municipality contended that as per the direction of the Government under Section 118 of the Act, since the existing rate of tax was at Rs.1,114/- which was higher than the tax to be increased by 25%, the respondent Taxation Appellate Tribunal was rightly fixed the half yearly tax at Rs.1,114/-. The Municipality contended that as per the direction of the Government under Section 118 of the Act, since the existing rate of tax was at Rs.1,114/- which was higher than the tax to be increased by 25%, the respondent Taxation Appellate Tribunal was rightly fixed the half yearly tax at Rs.1,114/-. The Principal District Judge, considering that the house was occupied by the owner Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani from 1996 onwards and therefore, the half yearly property tax is to be levied only on the basis of the owner occupation and at the rate of Rs.488/- calculated as per column 20 on the basis of annual rental value on square feet basis and that the half yearly tax fixed at Rs.1,114/- which was fixed when the premises was occupied by the tenant, cannot be said to be proper. In that view, the order of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation was set aside directing the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation to fix half yearly tax at Rs.488/- from 1.10.1998. The judgment is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Municipal Corporation argued that the levy of half yearly tax fixed at the rate of Rs.1,114/- was as per the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 4.3.1999 pursuant to the direction issued by the Government. The learned counsel also brought to the notice that according to the column 20 of the Act, when it is calculated on the basis of the annual rent on the square feet basis and if it is less than the existing tax, then the existing tax will continue and so, the half yearly property tax fixed at Rs.1,114/- has been correctly fixed and accordingly it was claimed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that inasmuch as his wife Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamanai was in occupation of the house from 1996 onwards on her retirement as teacher and inasmuch as the half yearly tax has been fixed on the basis that it was previously occupied by the tenant and since Special Notice was issued fixing the half yearly tax at Rs.488/-, even is to be enhanced by 25%, then the half yearly tax is to be fixed only at Rs.600/- and whileso fixing the half yearly tax at Rs.1,114/- cannot be said to be proper. 7. 7. The respondent's wife as owner of the house made the appeal to the Taxation Appellate Tribunal on 7.4.1999 that after vacating the tenant and on her retirement as teacher she occupied the house in June, 1996 and her request to reduce the tax as she occupied the house as owner was not considered and without accepting her objections, the property tax has been fixed with effect from 1.10.1998 at Rs.1,114/- as that was existing from 1993-1994 onwards. 8. The Special Notice was caused fixing the half yearly tax at the rate of Rs.488/- with effect from 1.10.1998 on the square feet basis, but since, the existing tax is Rs.1,114/-, as per the direction of the Government, the same has to be fixed to the premises occupied by the owner and accordingly the same tax has been fixed. The same has been confirmed by the Taxation Appellate Tribunal and also dismissed the appeal. 9. The respondent's wife in the appeal preferred before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal dated 7.4.1989 has stated that the tax payable for the said premises during the year 1969-70 was Rs.98.56, during the year 1972-73 it was Rs.107.23, during the year 1977-78 it was Rs.228.80, during the year 1987-1988 it was Rs.572.00 and from 1993-94 onwards it was Rs.1,114/-. It is also stated therein that no relief was granted to her despite the facts she filed appeal to the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation. 10. As per resolution of the Tirunelveli Municipal Council it is resolved to levy tax on various categories of buildings on the basis of annual rental value calculating on the basis of square feet and in doing so, individual Special Notices were served upon house owners stating that the existing tax or the tax fixed on the basis of square feet value whichever was higher would be the revised half yearly tax from 1.10.1998. 11. As per the revision made, the Government issued directions under Section 118 of the District Municipalities Act to adopt slab system, viz., for the residential premises 25% increase of the existing tax, 50% increase for rental premises and other rates of increase were stipulated for factories, commercial buildings, etc. Pursuant to such directions, the Tirunelveli Municipal Council by its resolution dated 4.3.1999 adopted the slab system. Pursuant to such directions, the Tirunelveli Municipal Council by its resolution dated 4.3.1999 adopted the slab system. As per that system, if the tax calculated under column (20) on the basis of annual rental value on square feet, is less than existing tax, the existing tax is to continue and if the tax calculated on the basis of annual rental value on square feet basis, is higher than the existing rate of tax and also higher than the increase of tax by 25%, tax calculated as per column (20) would be adopted. 12. Admittedly, as set out above, the rate of half yearly tax was Rs.1,114/- for the premises subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition and if revised as per the Special Notice available with the appeal records, it came to Rs.488/- under column (20) and so, as per demand notice, the existing tax Rs.1,114/- was fixed as payable. The second clause, viz., if tax calculated on the basis of annual rental value on square feet basis, is higher than the existing rate of tax and also higher than the increase of tax by 25%, the tax calculated as per column (20) is to be adopted is not applicable on the facts of the case. Therefore, in fixing the half yearly tax at Rs.1,114/- which was existing tax by the Special Notice appears to be correctly made and requires no change. Such tax has been fixed only taking into consideration, the direction issued by the Government and as per the resolution adopted by the Municipal Council on 4.3.1999. It follows that fixing of half yearly property tax does not call for any interference and the same has been rightly confirmed by the Taxation Appellate Tribunal. 13. Further, the learned Principal District Judge, by stating that the existing rate of half yearly tax at Rs.1,114/- was fixed when the premises were occupied by tenant and inasmuch as the same was occupied by the owner herself after retirement as teacher from 1996 onwards again fixing the same rate of tax is not proper. Such half yearly tax has been fixed as early as 1993-94. As per the Government direction even during the relevant time if the property has been in occupation of the tenant or the owner concerned, then the increase will have to be 50% or 25% as the case may be. Such half yearly tax has been fixed as early as 1993-94. As per the Government direction even during the relevant time if the property has been in occupation of the tenant or the owner concerned, then the increase will have to be 50% or 25% as the case may be. If the premises is occupied by the tenant then the tax is to be fixed by increasing 50% of the existing tax and if the premises is occupied by the owners then the tax is to be fixed by increasing 25% of the existing tax and further clarification has been made as per the resolution of the council dated 4.3.1999 as set out above. 14. Therefore, the matter that was under consideration to subsequent direction of the government is only in respect of the residential premises if occupied by the owner or tenant and not with regard to tax already fixed previously, when it was occupied by the tenant or owner concerned. In that view of the matter, the half yearly tax which was fixed as early as 1993-94 being the existing tax at the time of refixing the tax pursuant to the direction issued by the Government on the square feet basis of annual rental value being higher and as such the existing tax was rightly fixed as payable. It follows such tax as confirmed by the Taxation Appellate Tribunal is proper and which was reversed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli cannot be said to be correct and it should be set aside. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 20.11.2000 made in Appeal Against Taxation Appeal No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli are set aside. The order of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal dated 20.9.1999 is confirmed.