The Times of India               15.05.2013

Nagpur Municipal Corporation office bearers not to oppose action on traders

NAGPUR: The BJP-led ruling party at the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) is strongly opposing the local body tax (LBT) since its implementation and also supporting the agitating traders. But mayor Anil Sole himself clarified that the office bearers will not oppose any action on the traders by the NMC administration for delayed payment or any for other reason.

As reported by TOI on Monday, the cash-strapped civic body is facing huge revenue loss following strong opposition to the LBT from the traders especially those involved in whole-sale markets. The impact on revenue has affected developmental works. But the NMC is preparing the line of action to ensuring revenue from LBT after amended act comes into force on Wednesday.

A senior NMC official told TOI the traders will be entitled for 5 times penalty if they failed to ensure registration after May 15. "Traders will also have to pay 2% interest per month on LBT amount if they failed to pay on or before May 20."

Admitting the impact on revenue following the agitation by traders, Sole said LBT is totally depended on traders. "Civic bodies profited from LBT where there is no protest from the traders. Here the agitation was expected as the government failed to take the office bearers, public representatives and traders' associations into confidence before going for such a big financial reform. Though we oppose LBT policy, there is no issue of opposing the NMC administration's action as it arises as the officials are bound to act according to provisions in the bylaws formulated by the government," he said.

Meanwhile, the Federation of Associations of Maharashtra's (FAM) letter demanding LBT in lieu of octroi in 2009 started to be circulated among the citizens and traders in the city to aware them about the government's decision. , came according to the demands made from the traders' association itself. The FAM's letter already exposed by the TOI in Mumbai few days ago.

The letter dated August 26, 2009 was submitted to the then chief minister and undersigned by four dignitaries representing the traders of the State including FAM president Mohan Gurnani, the then president of Maharashtra chamber of commerce (MACCIA) Digvijay Kapadia, president of Mahashtra Vyapari Mahasangh Atul Shah and the then vice-president of MACCIA Mansingh Pawar. The letter was written under the banner of Octroi and Traffic Excess Fees Abolition Committee, which was demanding abolition of octroi in 2009. Gurnani was the convener of the committee and also led the agitation.

In the letter, the committee placed 10 types of demands before the State government, of which, first was introduction of LBT in lieu of octroi with immediate effect that too on or before October 1, 2009.

Even, the NMC and also chief minister Prithviraj Chavan had earlier clarified that the government abolished the octroi following the long pending demand of the traders association to do away with the octroi.

Even, Kapadia earlier told TOI that MACCIA was in favour of replacing LBT with octroi.

Accepting the demand made in 2009, Gurnani told TOI that it was wrong to read the letter in current situation as the government did not abolish octroi in 2009 and took over four years to do it. "We in the same letter demanded that no separate registration procedure wit the local body should be demanded from the traders and registration in VAT be accepted as deemed registered. There are other demands also which the government did not accept till date," he said.

Asked about Gurnani's comment, a senior NMC official said the civic body is considering the VAT registration itself to be deemed registered under LBT. "NMC is appealing for registration of the traders who are not registered under VAT."

Taking a pinch on the Government, Gurnani further said the UDD is citing papers on fire after massive fire at Mantralaya whenever any issue is raised. "But the UDD got this letter perfectly and itself raises many questions."

The Hindu               13.05.2013

Taxing ‘encroachers’ seems a delayed affair

Special Correspondent

Each year the GHMC could be richer by at least Rs. 50 crore. While there is this threat to ‘rationalise’ property tax on regular payers, the same enthusiasm is not visible in taxing properties that have come up on government lands or acting in cases where the land ownership is in dispute.

The rules of the civic body do clearly state that any property – private or government – can be taxed. Even unauthorised constructions and those built in violation of the sanctioned plan are liable to pay property tax. At the same time, the GHMC Act also states that paying property tax does not give regularisation rights to property owners. According to senior Municipal officials, even after paying property tax the status of the property does not change.

Despite the law being clear, the Municipal Corporation has been wary of imposing property tax on constructions that have come up on government lands. “The Vigilance and Enforcement Department has made a few critical comments on some cases wherever the tax has been collected, implying that the GHMC was regularising properties by doing so,” the officials explained.

A few months ago, GHMC Commissioner M.T. Krishna Babu sought clarification from the government on levying property tax on illegal constructions while reiterating the rules. “We can start collecting tax only after receiving the government’s clarification, otherwise our people are scared to touch such constructions,” senior officials said. They hope to get a response from the government so that they can prepare notices at the beginning of the financial year. “But, if recent experiences are anything to go by, it may not come that soon,” they said. Indeed, they have a point. For more than a year now, the civic body has been awaiting official orders on transfer of 10 per cent motor vehicle tax and profession tax collected within the city, traffic offences fine and property tax dues. Incidentally, all these have been given the go-ahead by the Chief Minister.

Officials are not keen to tax properties that have come up on govt. lands or to act in cases where ownership is in dispute.