HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18179 OF 2001
DATED: 17.12.2014 Between:
Palamarasetti Rajanna … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18179 of 2001
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the property tax notice dt. 26.04.2001 and distress notice dt. 06.06.2001 issued by the respondent under Section 269 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since 09.03.1994, the respondent had not issued any notice to the petitioner asking him to pay enhanced tax for the period from 1993 onwards and all of a sudden, the impugned notice dt.26.04.2001 demanding a sum of Rs.1,76,902/- towards enhanced property tax from 1993 to 2001 was issued to the petitioner.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that there was a tax enhancement of Rs.6,051/- in the general revision of property tax in 1993-94 II half year pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration dt.
22.03.1993; that the assessee had filed a Revision Petition questioning the same on 25.03.1994; that the assessee in his statement made during course of a personal hearing on 18.07.1996 contended that the matter be kept pending since similar matter was pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; that ultimately, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 02.07.2001 confirming the enhanced tax of Rs.6,051/- with effect from 01.10.1993 and on that basis, the impugned demand notice was issued.
No reply is filed to the counter-affidavit of the respondent.
Be that as it may, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent does not specifically state whether the order passed on 02.07.2001 disposing of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner questioning the enhancement of tax was communicated to the petitioner or not.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand notices dt. 26.04.2001 and 06.06.2001 have to be set aside. They are accordingly set aside. The respondent is directed to communicate the order dt. 02.07.2001 in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; On receipt of the said order, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the competent appellate authority under the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 treating the period of limitation for filing the said appeal as having commenced from the date of service of copy of the order dt. 02.07.2001 in the Revision Petition referred to supra. In case the petitioner does not avail the remedy of appeal after service of the order dt. 02.07.2001 on him, then it would be open for the respondent to give effect to the impugned demand notice.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
17th DECEMBER, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J kvni