Urban News

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Taxation

GHMC proposes 30% hike in property tax

Thursday, 19 August 2010 06:36 administrator
Print PDF

The Deccan Chronicle  19.08.2010

GHMC proposes 30% hike in property tax

Hyderabad, Aug. 18: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has proposed a 30 per cent hike in property tax from the next financial year (2011-2012) and a five per cent increase every year thereafter.

Thus, if a house owner is currently paying Rs 10,000 as property tax, he/she will have to pay Rs 13,000 if the hike comes into effect. The corporation proposes to raise an additional Rs 100-150 crore per year with the hike. The civic body collected Rs 470 crore property tax for the year 2009-2010.

The proposal, however, has to be first cleared by the standing committee comprising 15 corporators led by the mayor as its chairperson. It will then be placed before the GHMC general body meeting of 150 corporators. Subsequently, the GHMC will seek a final approval from government to affect a hike keeping in view the political impact it could have, though the GHMC Act enables it to hike the tax on its own.

Officials say that taxes for residential buildings in the core city (i.e. the old MCH area) have not been increased for nearly 20 years while the tax in the surrounding 12 municipalities, which are now part of Greater Hyderabad, was revised in 2002. Property tax was increased for commercial buildings in 2007 but the government had imposed a cap of not hiking beyond 50 per cent.

Many house owners are paying taxes that are less than 20 per cent of their annual rental value whereas GHMC is supposed to get over 33 per cent of the annual rental value, officials said.

The GHMC additional commissioner (finance/revenue), Mr S. Hari Krishna, said the per capita property tax in Hyderabad is less than Rs 400 as compared to over Rs 800 per capita property tax of Bengaluru, Ahmedabad and Surat among other cities.When contacted, the mayor, Ms Kartika Reddy, who chaired the standing committee meeting, said the “tax issue” had been deferred to the next meeting.

Last Updated on Thursday, 19 August 2010 06:40
 

Corporation asked to pay man for harassment

Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:54 administrator
Print PDF

Indian Express   18.08.2010

Corporation asked to pay man for harassment

Express News Service Tags : consumer, corporation, harassment Posted: Wed Aug 18 2010, 04:40 hrs

Chandigarh:  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed officials of the Municipal Corporation to withdraw sundry charges added to the water and electricity bill of a Sector-40 resident and compensate him for harassment.

Sumesh Chawla, a resident of Sector 40, in a complaint against the officials of the public health department of the Municipal Corporation had stated that he received a combined bill dated January 5, 2010, of electricity and water and sewerage charges to a sum of Rs 1,12,909. This included Rs 3,970 as consumption charges for electricity and Rs 1,08,939 as water consumption and sewerage charges in which Rs 1,07,809 had been shown as sundry charges for water consumption. As there had been no balance against his account for the previous period he was liable to pay Rs 1,039.50 only.

Notice was served to the officials, including superintending engineer, executive engineer and SDO of the public health department.

In their written reply the officials submitted that the complainant was a sub GPA holder of an SCO in Sector 20. The temporary water connection was sanctioned by the civic body for the SCO on January 8, 1997. The owner did not apply for regular water connection after completion of the building despite being receiving number of notices from their department and on December 10, 2005, it was disconnected. In 2007, it came to their notice that the water connection in the SCO had been restored without having applied for regular connection and, therefore, it was disconnected on February 15, 2008. 

Thereafter again on inspection by the vigilance department, it was found that the complainant again defaulted and restored the connection that was again disconnected. The reply further stated the amount charged in the bill was in lieu of the bill incurred on the usage of water in the said premises.

The forum, however, stated that the officials withdraw the sundry charges demanded from the complainant and pay him Rs 5,000 as compensation towards the mental and physical harassment caused to him along with Rs 1,100 as costs of litigation.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:56
 

Withdraw excess water bill: Forum

Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:47 administrator
Print PDF

The Times of India  18.08.2010

Withdraw excess water bill: Forum

CHANDIGARH: UT consumer forum on Tuesday directed municipal corporation to withdraw the excess water charges of Rs 1,07,809 demanded from the complainant for the water, which he never used.

Forum further directed MC to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation towards the mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant along with Rs 1,100 as cost of litigation.

Complainant Sumesh Chawla, a resident of Sector 40 B, had alleged that he had received a bill of Rs 1,12,909 as electricity, water and sewerage charges on January 5. The break-up was Rs 3,970 for electricity, and Rs 1,08,939 as water consumption and sewerage charges in which Rs 1,07,809 was shown as sundry charges for water consumption.
Chawla maintained that there had been no balance against his account. He was liable to pay Rs 1,039.50 only.

In their reply, municipal corporation stated that the complainant was a sub-GPA holder of SCO 69, Sector 20, Chandigarh. The temporary water connection was sanctioned by them for the said SCO on January 8, 1997. MC further submitted that the owner did not apply for the regular water connection after completion of the building despite being sent notices. Hence, the MC disconnected the supply on December 10, 2005.

MC further stated that it came to their notice on April 17, 2007, that the water connection in the said SCO had been restored without applying for the regular connection and so, they disconnected it on February 15, 2008.
Thereafter, during the inspection by vigilance department, it was found that the complainant had again defaulted and restored it. They disconnected it on September 24, 2008. The amount charged in the bill was in lieu of the bill incurred on the usage of water in the said premises.

Forum said the complainant is not the owner of the SCO and he has not used the said water for which he can be made liable to pay the charges.

Moreover, MC failed to show any rules and regulations under which this amount could be debited to the water and electricity of a GPA or sub-GPA holder, the forum added.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:49
 
More Articles...


Page 179 of 265