TAX PAYERS ASSOCIATION TIRUPATHI MUNICIPALITY Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER TIRUPATHI MUNICIPALITY TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these matters can be disposed of by a common judgment since the "same question of law is involved in each one of them, and we will dispose them of by a common judgment. Writ Appeal No. 685 of 1976 is in connection with enhancement of assessment in property taxes by the Tirupathi Municipality. Writ Appeal No. 129 of 1977 is in connection with enhancement of assessment in property taxes by the Kakinada Municipality. The other matters are also in connection with the increase in the house property tax assessment by the Municipality of Kakinada. Various contentions have been urged in these matters, but in the view that we are taking, it is not necessary for us to go into the details of the other contentions. Even if all the other contentions were to be rejected, one objection prevails, viz., that the special notices which have been issued by the Municipal Authorities concerned, in the first case by the Tirupathi Municipality and in the other cases by the Kakinada Municipality must be struck down for the simple reason that hough provision is made in the law and he rules for revision to the Commissioner n the first instance and thereafter for an appeal to the Appellate Commissioner who has to act in consultation with the Commissioner of the Municipality, at the second stage no material is furnished in the special notices on the basis of which either a revision can be presented to the commissioner or subsequently an appeal can be preferred against the decision of the Commissioner in revision. Practically, in all these notices, a laconic statement has been set out as reason for incfease of tax viz., inadequate assessment. Why assessment was considered inadequate or why valuation of the rental property was increased suddenly-sudden increase from Rs. 20 to Rs. 200 in one case and increase in the other cases-do not appear on the face of the notice. Each of rate-payers in these cases would be therefore completely in the dark as to the grounds on which the increase in assessment has been ordered. The notices would merely go to show that the valuation has been amended by increasing the annual rental value from Figure 'A' to Figure 'B', but the reasons on the basis of which the authorities increased the rental value in the first instance and consequently increased the assessment to property taxes do not appear 011 the face of these special notices. Since, apart from these special notices, the ratepayers would not have any material before them at the time of presenting a revision petition or subsequently at the time of presenting an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner, these notices must be struck down. It is a mockery of all ordinary principles and rules of administration of law to allow these special notices to stand or to allow Municipal authorities to issue special notices of this kind in this manner. All the necessary materials which would enable the assessee concerned to present a proper case in revision against the increase in assessment or against the increase in the annual rental value must be furnished in the special notice. Since this is not done, the special notices in all these cases are quashed and set aside. The two writ appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the learned single Judge in each of these matters are set aside. Each of the writ petitions is also allowed and the orders are quashed and set aside.

(2.) It appears that a standard form seems to have been utilised by the different municipalities for the purpose of issuing these special notices and the Municipal Administration appears to have been advised that that form of the special notice with the blanks remaining to be filled in was sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and the Rules made thereunder. In view of this standard form having been used by the different municipalities, there will be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs.150 in each case. Orders accordingly.

(3.) This order will not preclude the Municipality concerned from issuing fresh special notices if permitted in law.