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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more