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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more