The necessity of providing notice for claiming property tax refunds under the GHMC Act is crucial, and failure to comply with this requirement negates the right to a refund.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in not refunding an amount of Rs.72,61,594/- being the half of the total amount of Rs.1,45,33,188/- paid by the petitioner company to the 2^nd respondent corporation towards the property tax under PTIN- 1180119261, 1180118978, 1180118977, 1180119195 and 1180119188 in respect of the commercial complex D.No1-1-116, 1-1-117, 1-1-117/1 and 1-1-117/A of S.D. Road, Secunderabad owned by the petitioner, for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Section 232 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955, and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri V.R. Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Chennai. The petitioner company purchased commercial complex at D.No1-1-116, 1-1- 117, 1-1-117/1 and 1-1-117/A at S.D. Road, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”) under registered sale deed Nos.158 of 2007, 1135 of 2007, 1136 of 2007, 1262 of 2007 and 504 of 2008 and the assessment Nos. PTIN-1180119261, 1180118978, 1180118977, 1180119195 and 1180119188 for property tax was assigned by the GHMC in respect of the subject property; that the subject property was in vacant position and even before its occupation by the petitioner company, the same was sealed by the CBCID Police, Hyderabad in Crime No.167 of 2008 on 28.02.2012. The petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.7359 of 2013, before this Court to declare the action of respondent No.1 in restraining the petitioner from alienating the subject property as illegal and arbitrary and subsequently, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in spite of the fact that the subject property was vacant and the same was sealed by the CBCID police, the petitioner company has been paying the property tax to respondent No.2 corporation as per demand notice from 2008-09 to 2014-15 and the last payment of property tax of Rs.17,41,764/- was paid on 07.07.2014. As the petitioner company is in financial crisis due to various court cases, it was not able to meet the demand for payment of property tax for the subject property for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17; that as per the notice of respondent No.2 corporation, the amount due is Rs.17,41,764/- (interest 2,09,004/-); that the petitioner company has addressed two letters dated 15.04.2015 and 02.06.2015 to the Commissioner, GHMC, intimating that the subject property is vacant and that petitioner company has paid a sum of Rs.1,45,23,188/- towards property tax for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15 to the respondent No.2 corporation for the period which is either vacant or under the lock and seal by the CBCID police.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Section 232 of the GHMC Act, 1955 any building or land or any portion of any premises has been vacant for not less than 90 days, the commissioner is empowered to refund property tax, if any, to a maximum of one half of the amount paid in respect of such taxes for the number of days that such vacancy lasted. Therefore, the petitioner company is seeking refund of half of the property tax i.e., Rs.1,45,23,188/- from the respondent No.2 corporation for the period 2008-09 to 2014-15, during which, the subject property