[ecis2016.org] The Madras High Court, has pulled up the civic authorities in Chennai, for their failure to revise property tax rates for commercial and residential properties, which was last done in 1998
The Madras High Court has pulled up authorities, for not revising property tax every four years from 1998. If the revision of property tax was carried out according to the rules, the revision would be 25% for residential buildings and 100% for commercial buildings, the court said.
You are reading: Madras HC pulls up authorities for not revising property tax
However, the successive corporation councils had failed to make any revision in 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014. Property tax revision has been made by all other local bodies in TN, except the city of Chennai, the court said.
Read also : UAN login: All about EPFO member login using UAN
The court made this observation, when a petition from K Kulasekaran and K Padhmanabhan, challenging the property tax demand in respect of their shops in Koyambedu, made from 1996 up to 2015, came up.
[ecis2016.org] HC issues contempt notice to Chennai Development Authority over regularisation of unauthorised buildings
Justice N Kirubakaran said: “It is disheartening to note that the trust and faith reposed by the voters in their councillors, have been frustrated by the conduct of the elected councillors. The successive ruling parties, which have been controlling the Chennai Corporation from 1996 onwards, is to be squarely blamed for this lapse. Once the details regarding the loss caused to the local body is placed before this court, this court will pass appropriate orders, regarding slapping of the said amount on appropriate persons,” the judge said.
Read also : Pimple Saudagar property market: An overview
Stating that the councilors and mayors were responsible for the negligence, the high court also said, “Instead of discharging their duties, in fact, it is evident that they fight over petty issues in the council meetings, which are in the public domain. It is being said that the so-called elected councilors promptly descend at construction sites for various reasons, instead of doing their duties.”
Justice Kirubakaran directed the authorities to answer a set of six questions, such as why property tax payable in respect of city properties has not been revised and if proper steps are being taken to recover the existing property tax. The case has been posted to November 30, 2016.
Copyright belongs to: ecis2016.org