Chennai: Madras high court on Wednesday came down heavily on mayors and councilors of Chennai corporation for their failure to revise the property tax once in four years from 1998.
“It is disheartening to note that the trust and faith reposed by the voters in their councilors have been frustrated by the conduct of the elected councillors,” said Justice N. Kirubakaran.
Successive ruling parties, which have been controlling the Chennai Corporation from 1996 onwards is to be squarely blamed for this lapse. The judge was passing interim orders on petitions from K. Kulasekaran and K. Padhmanabhan, who challenged the property tax demand on their shops in Koyambedu, from 1996 onwards until 2015.
After noticing that the revision of property tax should be done once in four years, he noted the revision would be 25 per cent for residential buildings and 100 per cent for commercial buildings.
The last revision was made in 1998. The judge said successive corporation councils have failed to make any revision in 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014, whereas property tax revision have been made by all other local bodies in Tamil Nadu.
After impleading the state government as a party in the case, the judge directed the authorities to answer 1) Why the property tax payable in respect of city properties have not been revised? 2) What would be the total amount, that would be payable to the corporation, in case, the property tax had been revised during the years 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014? 3) What would be the enhancement amount alone for the above years, which would be the total loss caused, due to non-revision, for the above years, and the same has to be given separately. 4) When is the corporation likely to revise property tax and what is the time limit required? 5) Whether steps are properly taken to recover the existing property tax? 6) Whether lease amount payable in respect of properties of corporation are revised promptly and levied?,
Chennai city corporation council has not passed a resolution on the revision of property tax. Persons responsible for this kind of negligence were those elected as councilors and mayors, the judge said.
