9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of Rs. 94.19 for every half year till the year 1980-81. In the quinquennial revision for the period of 1981-85, the Municipal Commissioner proposed revision of the property tax at Rs. 579.60 per year, indicating the owner of the building to be the deceased, Shri Krishna Iyer. Petitioner filed exhibit P-1 objection dated October 9, 1980, informing the Commissioner about the death of his father. The petitioner had stated therein that the building was locked and unoccupied, that no further improvement justifying enhancement in the property tax had been made after the last assessment and that the annual value of the property might be fixed allowing 10% of depreciation per year. Exhibit P-2 dated March 6, 1981, was passed with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessment of building tax was arbitrary and the demand of land tax for the appurtenant area was unsustainable. Reference was made to section 100 of the Municipalities Act, which provides that the building tax has to be fixed on the basis of reasonable annual letting value alone. Reference is also made to section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which prescribes the upper limit as also the procedure for fixation of the fair rent. Petitioner submits that such fair rent shall be the standard rent for purposes of ascertaining the rental value of the building under section 100 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. It is his further contention that exhibit P-2 order, exhibit P-3 demand and exhibit P-6 notice of rejecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Kerala Municipalities Act, the method of assessment of property tax prescribed by law is that " every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is person different from the owner of such site or premises ". Sub-section (2) provides: " The annual value of buildings and lands which are occupied by, or adjacent and appurtenant to, buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from Month to month or from year to year less a deduction in the case of buildings of fifty per cent. of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone apart from their sites ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... might reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant." The same question was considered in Nataraja Gowder v. Municipal Council [1976] KLT 251. On a consideration of the authorities that far, it was held: " The criterion is the rent realised by the landlord and not the value of the holding in the hands of the tenant. The value of the property to the owner is the standard in making the assessment. It is only the rental value of the building to the owner that is material. That value would be what the owner might receive from the tenant or the owner could expect to receive by invoking the provisions of statutes enabling him to seek fair rent where what is being received is less than fair rent." Particular emphasis was laid on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be quasi-judicial. A person who is taxed is entitled to know the reason why and on what basis he was assessed. The assessing authority is, therefore, obliged to advert to the objections in the nature of exhibit P-1 and give an order containing reasons why the objections were rejected. Exhibit P-2 order does not contain any such reason at all. There can be no dispute that exercise of appellate power is quasijudicial: nor can there be any doubt that an appeal under rule 24 of the Taxation and Finance Rules has to be disposed of after hearing the appellant. In fact, rule 27 of the above rules stipulates that "no appeal to the council shall be heard (a) unless it be presented at the municipal office (i) within fifteen days from the service o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections and the appeal. This also renders the entire proceedings illegal and unsustainable. The only course open to me, in these circumstances, is to direct the appellate authority to reconsider exhibit P-4 appeal with notice to the petitioner and after disclosing such materials as are proposed to be used against him sufficiently in advance. The appellate authority shall consider the annual rental value of the building in accordance with section 100 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. In ascertaining the actual value, it will consider the effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1980] 122 ITR 700 and Syed Asadullah Kazmi v. Addl. District judge, Allahabad, AIR 1981 SC 1724, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
