The Petitioners are the registered Associations. Aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent to implement the Resolution No.101, dated 30.6.2010, the Petitioners are before this Court.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.By G.O.M.s.No.150, dated 12.11.2007, the Government had directed general revision of property tax in all Municipal Corporations,Municipalities and other local authorities w.e.f. 1.4.2008. This was followed by G.O.Ms.No.110, dated 23.6.08 under which, certain directions are issued by the Government regarding the actual quantum of increase in the tax. The said Government Order, dated 23.6.2008 directed the Municipalities to take steps to enhance the property tax fixing the maximum percentage of increase at 25% for residential buildings and 100% for industrial buildings and 150% for commercial buildings. Pursuant to the said Government Order, Pudukkottai Municipality passed a resolution on 30.6.2008 wherein, it was resolved to increase the property tax for residential buildings by 20% and for industrial and commercial buildings by 80% of the existing tax. The Pudukkottai Municipality Tax Payers Association bearing Registration No.47 of 1997 challenged the G.O in G.O.Ms.No.150, by which, the Government Order has directed increase of property tax as well as G.O.Ms.No.110 which laid down guidelines for such increase in W.P(MD)No.3897 of 2009 before the Principal Bench of this Court and the following directions were issued:
''7.In view of the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of by observing as follows:
a)The impugned resolution is set aside only in so far as the members of the Petitioner-Association who have not accepted the revision are concerned.
b)Those who have filed statutory appeals against the orders of assessment passed against them, may pursue the remedies which they have already resorted to.
c)In respect of those who have not accepted the revision and not paid the tax and who have also not gone before the Appellate Forum, the second respondent-Municipality shall issue individual notices, calling upon them to furnish all the details necessary for the determination of the annual value, within the specified time limit. If they furnish those details within the time limit or if they fail to furnish, the second respondent may cause an inspection to be made either for verifying the correctness of the details furnished or for collecting the details, as the case may be. Thereafter, the second respondent may issue provisional assessment orders, invite objections and then pass final assessment orders. Persons aggrieved by such final assessment orders, may file statutory appeals.''
4.It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said directions, some of the members of the Petitioner/Association in the said Writ Petition were served with individual notices for assessment of tax. While matter stood thus, the respondent/Municipality by Resolution No.101, dated 30.6.2010 had resolved to reduce the enhancement for commercial buildings to 50% from 80% that was fixed as per the earlier Resolution No.133, dated 30.6.2008. The Petitioners had addressed the respondent seeking fixation of tax as per Resolution No.101.Since the said request was not considered, the Petitioners moved this Court with W.P.No.13220 of 2010. By order dated 29.10.2010, this Court had directed the respondent namely the Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality to dispose of the said representation, dated 10.10.2010. By the impugned order, the Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality rejected the request and had chosen to question the right of the Municipal Councillors to bring a resolution reducing the percentage of enhancement of property tax. The reasoning given by the Commissioner in the impugned order is as follows:
',e;epiyapy; ghHit 5-y; fz;Ls;s jPHkhdk; efHkd;s cWg;gpdHfs; %yk; jd;dpr;irahf nfhz;Ltug;gl;L epiwNtw;wg;gl;Ls;sJ. Efuhl;rpapd; %yk; Kiwahff; nfhz;Ltug;gltpy;iy. ,e;efuhl;rpapy; nrhj;Jthp rPuha;tpd; nghUl;L thp caHT nra;J %d;W Mz;Lfshf t#y; nra;ag;gl;L tUk; epiyapYk;> thp caHT nra;ag;gl;ljpy; 70 tpOf;fhl;bw;F Nky; nrYj;jpAs;s epiyapYk;> Vw;fdNt ,e;efHkd;w jPHkhd vz;.133 ehs; 30.06.2008y; thp caHthf jPHkhdpf;fg;gl;l tzpfg;gad;ghl;L fl;blq;fSf;F caHT nra;ag;gl;l 80 thpj;njhifapypUe;J ghHit 5y; fz;l efHkd;w jPHkhdj;jpd;gb 50 rjtPjkhf Fiwj;jpl efuhl;rp rl;l tpjpfspy; toptif nra;ag;gltpy;iy.
5.From the impugned order, it is seen that the primary objection of the respondent appears to be that there is no provision under the District Municipalities Act to reduce the tax. He would also claim that Resolution No.101 has been brought by some of the councillors individually and not through Municipality. As far as the first reasoning is concerned, the District Municipalities Act does not provide for any enhancement of tax on percentage basis. The said method is adopted as a method of convenience rather than a legal method. The General revision of tax under the District Municipalities Act will have to be carried out by issuing special notices to the individual owners and the same should be followed by an assessment. The individual assessees or owners have a right of appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee. Section 82 of the Act provides for method of assessment of property tax. It is not in dispute that no such assessment of property tax was carried out by the respondent/Municipality prior to the general revision. As regards the second reasoning, Section 20 of the District Municipalities Act which deals with duty and powers of individual councillors. It confers a right on a individual councillor, to move resolution and once the resolution is carried through by the majority, then it becomes the resolution of the council. Therefore the second objection of the Commissioner to the effect that Resolution No.101 moved by some of the individual councillors also appears to be on a wrong premise.
6.In the counter filed by the respondent/Commissioner, it is stated that he has addressed the Commissioner of Municipal Administration on the resolution passed by the Councillors. Section 36 of the District Municipalities Act empowers the Government to suspend or cancel the resolution passed by the Municipality. Even though the respondent had addressed the Government on Resolution No.101, dated 30.6.2010, on 6.8.2010, the Government is yet to take a decision on the said request. Therefore as of today, Resolution No.101, dated 30.6.2010 passed by the Pudukkottai Municipality is legally valid. Therefore the Commissioner as an Executive Authority, cannot over reach the resolution of the Municipality and claim that he will implement the earlier resolution of the Municipality namely Resolution No.133, dated 30.6.2008.
7.For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Respondent/Commissioner is set aside. Rule Nisi is made absolute. The Respondent/Commissioner is directed to implement the Resolution No.101, dated 30.6.2010 and re-determine the tax payable by the assessees and take steps to recover the same in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
To The Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality, Pudukkottai..