In the recent ruling,the Andhra Pradesh High Court, ordered a fair hearing for the assessee in a property tax dispute, upholding her right to due process after she contested the cancellation of her house tax assessment and the removal of her electricity service meters. The Court also mandated a decision within three months and prohibited coercive actions against her during the proceedings.
B Venkatasubbamma,the petitioner-assessee, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking various declarations and directions concerning her property located at Tirupati Town.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
She challenged the actions of the Commissioner of the Tirupati Municipal Corporation and the Deputy Commissioner regarding the cancellation of her house tax assessment and the removal of her electricity service meters, asserting these actions were illegal and arbitrary, lacking due process. Additionally, she sought protection from interference in her possession of the property by unofficial respondents, claiming such actions violated principles of natural justice.
In her petition, the assessee contended that she had been residing in the property since 1979. Initially, she constructed a thatched house, which was later upgraded to an asbestos structure. Throughout her occupancy, she consistently paid house taxes and had received a Possession Certificate from the Municipal Councillor of Ward No. 3 on March 1, 1991.
However, she received a provisional order on July 3, 2024, requiring her to show cause regarding alleged unauthorized construction on her property. This order was issued following complaints from Mr. T. Gopi Krishna Reddy, who disputed her possession and sought the cancellation of her house tax assessment. Mr. Reddy, the son of another unofficial respondent, had previously initiated unsuccessful legal proceedings against the assessee.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
During the hearing, the assessee argued that she had not received prior notice or undergone an inquiry before the contested orders were issued, characterizing these actions as illegal and arbitrary. Conversely, the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents maintained that the show-cause notice was issued based on complaints made by the unofficial respondents and indicated that the petitioner’s explanation was under review.
A single bench of K. Manmadha Rao ( Justice ) directed the second respondent to consider the assessee’s explanation regarding the show-cause notice and the related complaints. It emphasized the need for the assessee to be provided a fair opportunity to present her case before a reasoned decision was made. It mandated that the second respondent issue a decision within three months from the receipt of the Court’s order.
The Court determined that no coercive actions should be taken against the assessee while the matter was under consideration and thus the writ petition was disposed of without costs, and any associated miscellaneous applications were also closed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
