ORDER : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2 nd respondent in not refunding an amount of Rs.72,61,594/- being the half of the total amount of Rs.1,45,33,188/- paid by the petitioner company to the 2 nd respondent corporation towards the property tax under PTIN- 1180119261, 1180118978, 1180118977, 1180119195 and 1180119188 in respect of the commercial complex D.No1-1-116, 1-1-117, 1-1-117/1 and 1-1-117/A of S.D. Road, Secunderabad owned by the petitioner, for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Section 232 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955, and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri V.R. Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Chennai. The petitioner company purchased commercial complex at D.No1-1-116, 1-1- 117, 1-1-117/1 and 1-1-117/A at S.D. Road, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”) under registered sale deed Nos.158 of 2007, 1135 of 2007, 1136 of 2007, 1262 of 2007 and 504 of 2008 and the assessment Nos. PTIN-1180119261, 1180118978, 1180118977, 1180119195 and 1180119188 for property tax was assigned by the GHMC in respect of the subject property; that the subject property was in vacant position and even before its occupation by the petitioner company, the same was sealed by the CBCID Police, Hyderabad in Crime No.167 of 2008 on 28.02.2012. The petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.7359 of 2013, before this Court to declare the action of respondent No.1 in restraining the petitioner from alienating the subject property as illegal and arbitrary and subsequently, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in spite of the fact that the subject property was vacant and the same was sealed by the CBCID police, the petitioner company has been paying the property tax to respondent No.2 corporation as per demand notice from 2008-09 to 2014-15 and the last payment of property tax of Rs.17,41,764/- was paid on 07.07.2014. As the petitioner company is in financial crisis due to various court cases, it was not able to meet the demand for payment of property tax for the subject property for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17; that as per the notice of respondent No.2 corporation, the amount due is Rs.17,41,764/- (interest 2,09,004/-); that the petitioner company has addressed two letters dated 15.04.2015 and 02.06.2015 to the Commissioner, GHMC, intimating that the subject property is vacant and that petitioner company has paid a sum of Rs.1,45,23,188/- towards property tax for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15 to the respondent No.2 corporation for the period which is either vacant or under the lock and seal by the CBCID police. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Section 232 of the GHMC Act, 1955 any building or land or any portion of any premises has been vacant for not less than 90 days, the commissioner is empowered to refund property tax, if any, to a maximum of one half of the amount paid in respect of such taxes for the number of days that such vacancy lasted. Therefore, the petitioner company is seeking refund of half of the property tax i.e., Rs.1,45,23,188/- from the respondent No.2 corporation for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15, during which, the subject property was vacant. The petitioner company has also sent two letters dated 15.04.2015 and 02.06.2015 to respondent No.2 corporation requesting to refund the half amount of property tax paid by the petitioner company for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15, however, there is no response from respondent No.2 corporation; that the petitioner company issued legal notice dated 26.03.2016 to respondent No.2 corporation calling upon respondent No.2 corporation to refund an amount of Rs.72,61,594/- being the half of the total amount of Rs.1,45,23,188/- for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15 in respect of subject property, however, respondent No.2 corporation neither considered the request nor gave any reply to the legal notice. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the subject property was sealed by CBCID police on 28.02.2012 even before the same was occupied by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the subject property was sealed by CBCID police on 28.02.2012 even before the same was occupied by the petitioner. He further submitted that though the subject property was not occupied by the petitioner company, paid the property tax regularly without any default and in view of Section 232 of the GHMC Act, the petitioner is entitled for refund of 50% of the property tax paid by them and the respondent corporation despite letters dated 15.04.2015 and 02.06.2015 and legal notice dated 26.03.2016, not considered the request of the petitioner. He further submitted that though Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act requires notice in writing of the vacancy by the person liable for the tax to the Commissioner, in the present case, the responsible officers were arrested and criminal cases were lodged, therefore, notices could not be given to respondent No.2 corporation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the photographs showing writing on the building to the effect that property is under custody of CID HYD in C.R.No.167 of 2008 and that respondent corporation is also aware of the said seizure and as such, the notice under Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act, shall be treated as complied with. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to refund 50% of the property tax in terms of Section 232 of the GHMC Act. 8. Learned Standing Counsel by referring to counter affidavit submitted that the subject property was sealed only on 28.02.2012 and even according to the petitioner company, it paid property tax from 2007-2008, therefore, allegation that property was vacant is contrary to their own affidavit; that If, the subject property was vacant, and not occupied by the petitioner, the petitioner has to issue notice to the respondent corporation in terms of Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act. He further submitted that Section 232 of the GHMC Act has no application to the facts of the present case as there is no intimation which is mandatory in nature under Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act. He further submitted that as the subject property was sealed only on 28.02.2012, petitioner is not entitled for refund of property tax for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15 and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. He further submitted that as the subject property was sealed only on 28.02.2012, petitioner is not entitled for refund of property tax for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15 and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. It is not in dispute that petitioner purchased the subject property in the year 2008 and that they have paid property tax from 2008-09 to 2014-15. The only contention raised by petitioner that in view of seizure of subject property by CBCID police, the petitioner could not occupy the subject property and the case of the petitioner is that the Managing Director and Director were arrested in criminal cases and that they could not issue notice to the respondent corporation in terms of Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act. The further contention of the petitioner is that the seizure of the subject property can be treated as notice in terms of Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act and therefore, petitioners are entitled for refund of 50% of the property tax paid by them. 10. It is relevant to refer to Section 232 of the GHMC Act, which is extracted here under:- 232. Refund of property taxes :- When any building or land or any portion of any premises which the Commissioner has treated under Section 216 as a separate property has been vacant for not less than 90 days, the Commissioner shall subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, refund the property taxes, if any, to a maximum of one half of the amount paid in respect of such taxes for the number of days that such vacancy lasted. 11. It is further relevant to refer to Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act, which is extracted here under:- 234. Refund not claimable unless notice of vacancy is given to the Commissioner :- (1) No refund of any property tax shall be claimable from the Commissioner as aforesaid, unless notice in writing of the vacancy shall have been given by the person liable for the tax, or his agent, to the commissioner. 12. A bare reading of Section 234(1) of the GHMC Act stipulates that unless notice in writing of the vacancy shall have been given by the person liable to pay the tax, no refund of property tax shall be claimable from the Commissioner. 12. A bare reading of Section 234(1) of the GHMC Act stipulates that unless notice in writing of the vacancy shall have been given by the person liable to pay the tax, no refund of property tax shall be claimable from the Commissioner. In the present case, no notice was issued to the respondent corporation for the period for which property was vacant. The only explanation that is offered by the petitioner is that criminal cases were registered against the responsible officers i.e., Managing Director and Director and they were arrested. Therefore, petitioner company could not inform the respondent corporation about the vacancy of the subject property. 13. It is relevant to note that criminal case in Crime No.167 of 2008 was registered by Inspector of Police, EOW, CID, Hyderabad and property was seized on 28.02.2012. Aggrieved by seizure of subject property, petitioner company filed Criminal Petition No.9757 of 2015 before this Court to quash the proceedings, and the said criminal petition was allowed on 02.08.2022. The petitioner company has been paying the tax from 2008-09. Whereas, the property was seized by the police on 28.02.2012 and no proper, plausible explanation is offered as to why notice could not be given to the respondent corporation by the petitioner company in terms of Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act except saying that criminal cases were registered and responsible officers i.e., Managing Director and Director were arrested. Thus, there is no obstruction or any proceeding preventing the petitioner from occupying the subject property prior to seizure of subject property i.e., 28.02.2012. 14. Since the petitioner company failed to issue any notice in terms of Section 234 (1) of the GHMC Act to the respondent corporation, it is not entitled to any relief in so far as the period prior to seizure of subject property i.e., 28.02.2012, is concerned. The proceedings of seizure of subject property dated 28.02.2012 were quashed by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2022 in Criminal Petition No.9757 of 2015. In so far as post seizure period is concerned, in view of quashing of seizure proceedings by this Court, in considered opinion of this Court, liberty can be granted to the petitioner Company to approach respondent corporation afresh, for refund of property tax. 15. In so far as post seizure period is concerned, in view of quashing of seizure proceedings by this Court, in considered opinion of this Court, liberty can be granted to the petitioner Company to approach respondent corporation afresh, for refund of property tax. 15. In the light of the above discussion and peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner company to submit an application to respondent corporation seeking benefit under Section 232 of the GHMC Act for the period subsequent to seizure i.e., 28.02.2012 and on such submission of application, respondent corporation is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of submission of application. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.