Bengaluru: The high court sought a spot inspection report on a petition filed by a Bengaluru resident challenging the revised property tax (including penalty with interest) demanded from her by BBMP.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order recently after hearing a petition filed by Roopa B Rao, a resident of RMV Extension, Aramane Nagar.
The petitioner challenged the notices as well as orders issued by the civic body demanding payment of Rs 17,71,780, inclusive of Rs 4,82,652 differential value of property tax from 2016-17 till 2022-23, Rs 9,65,304 penalty for the same period, and Rs 3,23,824 as interest.
The petitioner claimed that according to Section 144(15) of the BBMP Act-2020, the chief commissioner or a person authorized by him should issue notice of re-assessment to the taxpayer followed by an order by the chief commissioner or authorized officer. “In the instant case, the chief commissioner has not issued any show-cause notice or order before issuing the demand notice. The assistant revenue officer (ARO) has initiated proceedings though he is not an authorized officer under the Act,” the petitioner said, seeking quashing of the SOP issued by the BBMP chief commissioner on Dec 6, 2023 wherein AROs were put in charge of assessment, recovery and management of property tax.
‘Without jurisdiction’
According to the petitioner, the orders for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 are wholly without jurisdiction for the simple reason they were issued on Dec 31, 2020 and Jan 4, 2021, after the new BBMP Act received the governor’s assent on December 21, 2020.
Claiming that there are no rules brought into force vis-a-vis implementation of the BBMP Act, the petitioner said Section 144(15)(b) of the BBMP Act is liable to be struck down as it gives unguided as well as unbridled power on the executive to impose penalty over and above twice the tax without prescribing an upper limit. The power to impose penalty is quasi-criminal/ criminal in nature and cannot be conferred upon an officer who is not a judicial authority, she added.
With regard to her property, the petitioner asserted that the first floor was vacant since 2016 and it was wrong on the part of officials to report that the entire building was tenanted. Even the property, mentioned as being in B zone in the SAS return, has been shown to be in C zone in the ARO’s report and still higher tax is demanded, sans any valid reason, she said.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order recently after hearing a petition filed by Roopa B Rao, a resident of RMV Extension, Aramane Nagar.
The petitioner challenged the notices as well as orders issued by the civic body demanding payment of Rs 17,71,780, inclusive of Rs 4,82,652 differential value of property tax from 2016-17 till 2022-23, Rs 9,65,304 penalty for the same period, and Rs 3,23,824 as interest.
The petitioner claimed that according to Section 144(15) of the BBMP Act-2020, the chief commissioner or a person authorized by him should issue notice of re-assessment to the taxpayer followed by an order by the chief commissioner or authorized officer. “In the instant case, the chief commissioner has not issued any show-cause notice or order before issuing the demand notice. The assistant revenue officer (ARO) has initiated proceedings though he is not an authorized officer under the Act,” the petitioner said, seeking quashing of the SOP issued by the BBMP chief commissioner on Dec 6, 2023 wherein AROs were put in charge of assessment, recovery and management of property tax.
‘Without jurisdiction’
According to the petitioner, the orders for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 are wholly without jurisdiction for the simple reason they were issued on Dec 31, 2020 and Jan 4, 2021, after the new BBMP Act received the governor’s assent on December 21, 2020.
Claiming that there are no rules brought into force vis-a-vis implementation of the BBMP Act, the petitioner said Section 144(15)(b) of the BBMP Act is liable to be struck down as it gives unguided as well as unbridled power on the executive to impose penalty over and above twice the tax without prescribing an upper limit. The power to impose penalty is quasi-criminal/ criminal in nature and cannot be conferred upon an officer who is not a judicial authority, she added.
With regard to her property, the petitioner asserted that the first floor was vacant since 2016 and it was wrong on the part of officials to report that the entire building was tenanted. Even the property, mentioned as being in B zone in the SAS return, has been shown to be in C zone in the ARO’s report and still higher tax is demanded, sans any valid reason, she said.