Skip to main content

Owners can pay property tax under old regime: Bombay high court

Providing relief to property tax payers, the Bombay high court, in an interim order, has directed some property owners to go by the old regime and to pay 25% of the differential amount.

A bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha in October admitted a petition filed by Atash Behrams, Agiaries and Religious Institutions Welfare Society, which challenged the validity of the new property tax structure introduced earlier this year. Under the new system, the tax is calculated on the basis of the capital value of a property, and the age of a building, its location and use are taken into account. Experts contested the new "flawed" system could push up the tax by 300% or more.

The BMC also withdrewexemptions for charitable institutions. Bombay Hospital, a charitable institution, was the first to assail the hike in court, challenging the system and a Rs 2-crore bill for 2010 to 2013.

Property tax under the old regime was calculated according to the rateable value of a building, based on the expected reasonable rent it could attract. The Bombay Hospital and Atash Behrams petitions led to a slew of other petitions being filed in the HC. Property Owners Association, the Parsi Punchayat Funds and Properties, The Foundation for Medical Research, Mota Mandir Trust, the Indian Hotels Co and a huge bunch of almost 40 other pleas flooded the HC. They all challenged the new property tax structure "unconstitutional, exorbitant and confiscatory".

On December 23, the HC directed the state once again to file its reply. The BMC said it would file one by January 16.The HC adjourned the matter to January 29 but directed the petitioners to pay municipal taxes at the pre-amended rates and also the additional tax at 25% of the differential tax between the tax payable under the old and new regime.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Owners-can-pay-property-tax-under-old-regime-Bombay-high-court/articleshow/28163534.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more