IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, DEEPAK MANCHANDA, JJ.
M/s. ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CWP-4096 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to property tax classification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legislation enabling property tax rates. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. previous appeal success and re-assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. outcome of revisions and remands. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. petitioner’s arguments on categorization. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. various legal and procedural arguments. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. defendants’ response to petitioner’s claims. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. overview of relevant statutory provisions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. legal standards for tax determination. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. assessment criteria for property usage. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. principles of natural justice and rights. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 12. final order on the matter. (Para 48) |
| 13. conclusion of dismissal. (Para 49) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department holding the IT- ITES, Sector Specific SEZ property of the petitioner exigible to property tax at "commercial rates".
2. A writ of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to levy property tax at "industrial rates" instead of "Commercial Rates" .
Brief Factual Matrix
3. Petitioner is stated to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. It has been averred that the petitioner's property was notified as IT-ITES SEZ by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Government of India as well as by the Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Haryana. Pursuant to such approval, the petitioner's properties were leased out to various lessees for setting up of SEZ units.
4. The Haryana Government, Urban Local Bodies Department issued a notification dated 11.10.2013 in terms of Section 87 (3) read with Section 149 (1) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1994 Act') imposing property tax on buildings and lands within the limits of the concerned municipal corporation. Copy of the notification dated 11.10.2013 stands appended as Annexure P-5 alongwith the petition.
5. Thereafter the Haryana Government vide notification dated 03.03.2014 (Annexure P-6) brought out an amendment to the notification dated 11.10.2013 and inter alia inserted para 2F (xiii) and which was in the following terms:-
6. The respondent-Municipal Corporation, Gurugram vide communication dated 11.09.2015 called upon the petitioner to pay property tax from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 in terms of the 2013 notification and as amended in the year 2014. Petitioner is stated to have responded on 17.09.2015 clarifying that insofar as the petitioner's property was concerned, only two buildings were operational and the residential buildings were still under construction. Petitioner also raised a plea before Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, to levy property tax on the petitioner's property by treating the same to fall under the "industrial category".
7. However, on 18.09.2015 communication was issued by Municipal Corporation Gurugram, informing that the petitioner's property had been assessed under head "IT Park, Cyber City-Park" which had been inserted in the notification dated 11.10.2013 by virtue of amendment made on 03.03.2014 and as such the property tax liable to be levied was 50 per cent of the rates applicable to commercial properties. Demand notices dated 11.09.2015 were as such issued by the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram for recovery of property tax for the period 2010-11 to 2015-16. At this stage, petitioner filed CWP No.20789 of 2015 titled as M/s ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation , Gurugram assailing the demand notices dated 11.09.2015 demanding property tax under the commercial category. In th
CCE and Customs v. Hongo India (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 791
Ganeshan v. T.N. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board (2019) 7 SCC 108
Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Lmt. (2021) 7 SCC 313
The tax on circumstances and property is a composite tax validly structured under the Town Areas Act, with provisions allowing retrospective application following the establishment of a new notified ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to grant special exemptions for property tax lies with the Council with the sanction of the Government, and exemptions are gran....
State bound by SEZ policy promising octroi exemption to developers; must reimburse payments despite no municipal rule amendment, applying promissory estoppel as promise induced investment without pre....
Procedural compliance in tax assessment is mandatory; failure to follow prescribed rules invalidates tax demands.
Exemption from levy of general property tax – Where assessee could survive without receiving voluntary contributions, it would be liable to pay general property tax – In a democratic set-up, a munici....
The main legal point established is that rules prescribing property tax fixation must comply with the limits specified by the Government as per Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.