IMPORTANT POINT
A demand notice found illegal cannot have conditions imposed for payment; adherence to procedural requirements under the GHMC Act is essential.

ORDER :

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021passed in M.A. No.24 of 2021 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad directing the appellant to pay 60% of the amount demanded under the demand notice dated 08.03.2021 for Rs.10,91,004/-.

2. The appellant is the Church of South India Trust Association, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was submitted that the property bearing No.7-1-6/2 to 6/4 St.Thomas Church, Secunderabad was owned and possessed by the Church of South India Trust Association Medak Diocese and the said premises was let out to Alfa Hotel and Stores who was carrying on hotel business for the past several decades. The respondents issued a notice of demand in respect of the premises bearing No.7-1-6/2 to 6/4 for the financial year upto 2020-21 on 25-2-2019 demanding an amount of Rs.10,91,004/-. The tax demanded was 500 times of the tax payable in the past. The respondent fixed the property tax @ Rs.4,58,406/- arbitrarily and the same was set aside by the judgment dated 21.04.2017 passed in M.A No.117 of 2015 and the judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in M.A. No.75 of 2019 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. In spite of the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed in M.A. No.117 of 2015 and the judgment dated 13.02.2020 in MA No.75 of 2019, the respondents not obeyed the directions and got issued the notice under the appeal without following the due process of law. The notice of demand of property tax issued by respondents Corporation did not confirm the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘GHMC Act’). The annual property tax in respect of the above premises was only Rs.97,451/-. The premises was an old one. While passing the judgment dated 13.02.2020 in MA No.75 of 2019, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, remanded the matter back to the respondents Corporation to assess the tax of the petition schedule property afresh in accordance with the Rules including providing a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The respondents without following the said judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in MA No.75 of 2019, mechanically issued the demand notice claiming tax of Rs.10,91,004/-, and prayed to set aside the same.

3. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court on considering the contentions of the appellant and as the respondents remained ex parte, observed that in the demand notice the rate of interest was not specified and the period from which the arrears were accumulated were also not specified, set aside the impugned demand notice. But, however, considering that the appellant had also not complied the orders of the court passed in MA No.75 of 2019 wherein he was directed to pay 30% of the balance amount of Rs.3,19,102/- within a period of four months, allowed the appeal in part remanding the matter to the respondent Corporation to re-assess and fix the property tax in respect of the schedule property in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955 after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of the order on condition that the appellant should deposit 60% of the amount demanded under the impugned notice within two months from the date of the order dated 30.11.2021.

4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in M.A. No.24 of 2021, the present appeal is filed by the appellant raising the following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether in an appeal under Section 282 of the GHMC Act, the appellant can be directed to pay any amount out of the amount as against the demand notice, when the demand notice itself is found to be illegal and liable to be set aside?

b) Whether a court would have jurisdiction to decide any percentage of the demand notice when the very issuance