Problems With Form C of Mysore City Corporation

Mysore City Corporation is now sending Form C to all the property owners in Mysore. This form contains all the data (site area, built area, type of construction, age of building, whether building is self-occupied, etc.) which determine the property tax of the property. MCC is asking the property owners to verify the data and submit corrections if any, within a week. Verified data will then form the MCC property tax database and will likely be put on the MCC website and available for public scrutiny.

Based on my Form C and the forms of my friends, I wish to point out the following problems:

1. The information is printed in very small letters which is very difficult to read even for ordinary people, let alone the elderly.

2. The property owner is supposed to write the correct information by the side of any wrong information that is on the form. But there is no space for entering the correct information.

3. When there is no space for relevant information, much space is wasted on irrelevant information such as the new numbers that are being given to the property and the street, and the tax assessment for the last 8 years.

4. The inaccuracy of these forms is astounding. In my Form C, just about every information (name, address, site dimensions, built area, type of construction, age of building, tax assessed for previous years, etc.) that has been printed is wrong.

5. MCC would have done much better if it had given us blank forms and asked us to fill the details. What we write would then have been more legible.

6.The form is carelessly printed. In the space for site dimension, there are two boxes. One is titled length but the other one which should be breadth is not titled at all. At the bottom of the form, it lists 7 columns which can be corrected. But the body of the form does not name columns 1-6 at all!

7. There seems to be absolutely no quality control over the data entry operators. If they can not copy the data correctly from our previous tax forms, what is the guarantee that the corrections we are submitting now will be entered correctly? I am afraid that this will be an action replay of the voter ID fiasco, in which the correctness of the data on the voter ID card did not improve even after several revisions. Computerization will streamline tax system and improve tax collection only if correct data is entered. The acronym GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) is the basis of computerized data management. If wrong data is fed to computers, they will produce wrong tax demands and cause heartburn to the public.

In a related matter, having repeatedly faced the problem of ledger non-entry when I paid my property tax by cash or by cheque, I switched over to payment through e-mail, thinking that my problems would finally be solved by computers. But to my surprise, I found out that my e-payment has also been not entered into the ledger.

G.L.Nagaraj Urs, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Is There A Limitation Period For Property Tax?

Citizens have complained to Mysore Grahakara Parishat that they have received notices from Mysore City Corporation telling them that they have not paid the property tax for previous years and asking them to pay it now along with penalty. In some cases, the tax arrears go as far back as the year 2001-2002.

If the citizen receiving such a notice has paid the tax in question and has the receipt for it, he can go to the MCC office and show it. But people may not keep old receipts and if the receipt is lost, he will be in trouble.

The question is, can MCC issue notices for property tax eight years after it is to be paid? Is there not any period of limitation for property tax?

This question has been answered by a recent judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (dated 20.11.2009 in RSA No.3305 of 2005 (O&M)). The court order can be found here. The salient points of this judgment are:

1. If the Municipal Corporations Act contains the limitation period for property tax explicitly, it applies.

2. If the Municipal Corporations Act does not contain the limitation period for property tax explicitly, Item No. 113 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies and the limitation period is 3 years.

3. If the Corporation issues a notice on tax arrears within the limitation period (given in 1. and 2. above) and the respondent fails to pay, the arrears of property tax will become a charge on the property. When the arrears become a charge on the property, the limitation gets enlarged by Item No. 62 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 to 12 years.

Sec. 474 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 sets the limitation period for collection of taxes as 6 years. Therefore, MCC can not demand tax arrears for tax years 2003-4 or earlier. If it issues a demand for tax arrears for tax years 2004-5 or later and the citizen fails to pay, MCC will get 12 more years to recover it.

B.Vaikunth Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

The Real Reasons Behind India’s Reluctance to Liberalize Petroleum Prices

Dr. Bhamy V Shenoy, in an article written for the Global Subsidy Initiative writes why India is reluctant to liberalize the petroleum prices.

In India, the government subsidizes petroleum products by requiring the companies who sell them – referred to as ‘oil-marketing companies' – to do so at a fixed price. If the companies are private, they receive no compensation and must absorb any losses. If they are government-owned, they are given government bonds in return: financial instruments that guarantee a fixed payment at a future time period, and can be immediately traded for their future value on financial markets. Giving out government bonds is essentially the same as printing new money. Government-owned oil-marketing companies are also compensated with some of the profits earned by government-owned upstream oil companies. Even state oil companies, however, lose large amounts of potential revenue and the entire sector blames the arrangement for continued under-investment and financial difficulties. Between fiscal years 2004–2009, the subsidies resulted in under-recoveries of US$ 67 billion. It is difficult to estimate the total government expenditure because the creation of bonds is not recorded as spending in the national budget.

In 2008, as crude oil prices continued to increase, and the financial situation of oil companies worsened, a second high-level committee was organized under the chairmanship of Shri B. K. Chaturvedi, a former member of the Planning Commission, the government body that draws up India's Five Year economic plans. Unlike the Rangarajan committee's report, the Chaturvedi report did not recommend the liberalization of prices in direct and unambiguous terms, but its recommendation that product prices be based on "export parity", as opposed to trade parity, amounted to the same thing. They suggested very strongly that there should be no subsidies on kerosene and liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and that the poor could be more effectively helped through a smart card or coupon system. In December 2008, dramatically lower oil prices offered an ideal opportunity for reform, but the government did not act on these recommendations because of populist political pressure from opposition parties and some allies. The window of opportunity soon closed: prices climbed to over US$ 70 per barrel, once again affecting the bottom lines of the oil-marketing companies.

Read the full article in the Global Subsidies Initiative website.

Proposed Amendment to Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976

Maj.Gen.(Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, President, MGP, in a letter addressed to the District Forest Officer, Mysore

Acknowledging the importance of trees to mankind and realizing the fact that unless tree felling is regulated, our green cover may disappear through greed and ignorance, the Government of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, which made permission from the Forest Department mandatory for felling trees. Anyone (including officials of government bodies) is subject to criminal prosecution for felling a tree without the required permission. The KPT Act put a brake on tree felling and helped protect our green cover.

In the original Act, there were no exemptions from this restriction. But in 1977, two species of trees, Casuarina and Hopea Wightiana were exempted and again in 1987, nine more species, including coconut, eucalyptus, silver oak, subabul, etc were added to the list of exemptions. In 1998, exemption from this restriction was given to rubber and tea plantation owners for all species of trees.

Now, the government is considering an amendment to the KPT Act which would add 30 more species (including all the common trees such as mango, jackfruit, lemon, guava, neem, peepul, banyan, etc.) to the list of exemptions. This revision would make the KPT Act essentially useless.

Most of the tree fellings are impulsive moves, without much thought given to the long-term consequences. People cut trees because they block their view or because they shed leaves on their yard, without thinking about the shade they give and the cooling effect they provide. Government bodies cut trees on narrow footpaths to widen roads, forgetting that without footpaths, pedestrians will walk on the roads, thus defeating the very purpose of road widening. The condition that tree felling needs permission from the forest department has severely reduced such impulsive and ill-considered tree fellings.

Right now, the Forest Department can insist on replacement plantings of saplings  as a precondition for permission to cut existing trees. But if no permission is needed to cut any tree, the Department can not insist on replacement plantings, resulting in net loss of green cover which the Department is mandated to protect and increase.

Mysore Grahakara Parishat is an NGO with 702 members engaged in creating civic and environmental awareness.We demand that the proposed amendment to the Trees Act be scrapped.

MGP OBJECTS TO AMENDMENT TO THE TREES ACT

Acknowledging the importance of trees to mankind and realizing the fact that unless tree felling is regulated, our green cover may disappear through greed and ignorance, the Government of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, which made permission from the Forest Department mandatory for felling trees. Eleven species of trees are exempt from this requirement. Now, the government is considering an amendment to the KPT Act which would add 30 more species to the list of exemptions.

MGP is holding a short meeting at 4 PM on Friday, 21-5-10 outside Aranya Bhavan, Ashokapuram, to protest this amendment. At the end of the meeting, a memorandum against the proposed amendment will be submitted to the DFO

Maj.Gen. (Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Nonspeaking Orders Undermining Public Confidence in the Judiciary

Suppose you file a case before a court and in its order, the court just says "Case dismissed" without any explanation. Even though your case has been decided, can it be said that you received justice?

According to a well-known adage, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. If justice is "to be seen to be done", judgments should be a reasoned judgments. If a judgment can not convince people that it is fair, through cogent arguments, justice will not be seen to be done. That is why good judicial systems always emphasize reasoned judgments.

Judicial orders which define what the issues before the court are, decide these issues clearly and give reasons for deciding the issues in that particular way are called "Speaking orders". All courts are supposed to give speaking orders in every case before them. In Swaran Lata Vs. Harendra Kumar (AIR 1969 SC 1167), the Supreme Court of India has said "In a judicial trial, the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute is no judgment at all. Recording the reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just."

Even though the Supreme Court, in this lucid order, has emphasized the need for speaking orders in all courts in all cases, the courts in India are not always following it. There might be a historical reason for this. During the British rule and the early days of independence, court orders were seldom challenged and the courts did not have to explain their decisions in great detail. As the spirit of democracy grew, the courts have become more responsive. But still nonspeaking orders are being given in too many cases, by courts at all levels, causing great hardship to the litigants and causing doubts in the minds of the public whether the decisions were "a result of whim or fancy" to which the above Supreme Court order alluded.

In fact as far back as 1984, the Supreme Court noticed that the problem was escalating (1984 AIR 444) and again urged lower courts to issue speaking orders in all cases. It said that if such an order is appealed against, the higher courts would have to inevitably stay the order because they would not know the logic behind the order. The Supreme Court admitted that it also gives nonspeaking orders, but defended such orders giving the reason that there can be no appeals against Supreme Court orders (But this defence of nonspeaking orders issued by the Supreme Court goes against the spirit of its own order quoted at the beginning!).

Despite these observations of the Supreme Court in 1984, the problem of nonspeaking orders is steadily getting worse. More and more orders, even from the apex court, do not address the issues raised in the complaints before them and do not explain the rationale behind the orders. Cases are being decided in one paragraph or even one sentence. This trend, if left unchecked, will erode the public's faith in the judiciary. A law which makes speaking orders mandatory may be required to enforce the observations of the Supreme Court quoted above and remedy the situation.

C.V. Nagaraj, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Relief For Dog Bites And Cattle Gorings

MGP has been receiving calls from the people who have been bitten by neighbourhood dogs or gored by neighbourhood cattle. They have had to incur medical expenses, some times heavy, as a result. This is how they can get relief for the suffering they have been through.

If talking with the owners of the animals does not produce any results, one should file a police complaint detailing the medical expenses and asking the police to file a case under Sec. 289 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

289. Negligent conduct with respect to animal: Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

If you pursue the matter with the police vigorously, you can get reimbursed for your expenses.

Gerald Barboza & Syed Tanveeruddin, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Photos of the April 2010 issue of Grahaka Patrike

(Dr.Bhamy V. Shenoy)

MGP celebrated World Consumer Day on 15-3-10 by holding an all-day food adulteration detection demonstration for the public in Kuvempunagar.

 (Star of Mysore)

MGP's new book "My Mysore: We Shall protect it" was released (bottom photo) at the World Consumer Day celebrations on 15-3-10. From left, D.V. Dayanand Sagar, Sreemathi Hariprasad, Prof. A. Ramalingam, Vasanthkumar Mysoremath, Maj. Gen. (Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, C.V. Nagaraj

  (Dr.Bhamy V. Shenoy)

The fire department in Mysore has acquired a state of the art fire engine.

(Vishwas Krishna)

The congested paths of Devaraja Market and the plastic awnings make it a potential fire disaster spot.

 (B.Vaikunth Shenoy)

MGP's bidecennial celebrations were launched recently . From left, Prof S.K. Ananda Thirtha, Jayanthi Krishnan, Sreemathi Hariprasad, C.V. Nagaraj, Dr. Bhamy V. Shenoy, D.V. Dayanand Sagar.

(Bhamy Shenoy)
30-100 trees were recently cut down next to ESI Hospital on KRS Road without permission from the forest department. Such violations are on a sharp upswing in Mysore

(Syed Tanveeruddin)
The road in front of the zoo is being widened. Since the road will now stretch all the way to the gutter next to the zoo wall, there will be no footpath. If the pedestrians are forced to walk on the road itself, the very purpose of road widening will be defeated.

PROPERTY TAX FORMS NEED TO BE SIMPLIFIED

The form to be filled by property tax payers of Mysore is two pages long. But in light of the amended Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, most of the information that needs to be filled is not necessary and the length of the form can be reduced to a quarter of a page.

In fact, the only information that is needed is the name of the property owner, the location of the property and the tax paid on the property last year. According to the amended KMC Act, the property tax remains constant for three years and then automatically increases by 15%. The 24% cess on the property tax follows the same pattern. The solid waste management cess remains constant. In the years the property tax does not increase, the total amount to be paid is the same as the previous year and in the years the property tax increases by 15%, the new total amount to be paid is 1.15 x (last year's property tax + 24% cess) + SWM cess.

MCC should simplify its tax forms to reflect this fact. It is highly regrettable that the form has not been simplified even 5 years after the introduction of the SAS system. The present form asks all kinds of information about the site and the building which is totally unnecessary, because the tax does not need to be freshly computed at all.

Since the people are not aware of this simple fact, they get scared by the complicated form and hence pay as much as Rs. 50 to get the forms filled by others.

The irony is that while space is wasted in the form on irrelevant information, there is no place for the 5% rebate on tax paid before April 30!

It must be pointed out that several items on the property tax form have no legal basis whatsoever. Some of these illegal provisions are:

1. 50% rebate given for self-occupancy: A 50% rebate for self occupancy was given by Sec. 109A of the KMC Act with effect from 13-9-01. But when the Act was amended in 2005, this section which gave the rebate was removed. So MCC has no legal basis to give the 50% rebate for self-occupancy.

2. Depreciation: The amended KMC Act mandates that property tax remains constant for three years and then increases by 15%. Depreciation is taken into account when the property is first assessed for tax, but after that there is no scope for including depreciation.

3. 10% increase in site value for corner sites: According to the KMC Act, the property tax is based on the property guideline values decided by the registrar's office. These guideline values do not show that corner sites are valued at 10% more than the neighbouring sites. Therefore, MCC can not charge extra property tax for corner sites.

Another problem with the property tax payments is that four banks are supposed to be authorized to collect property tax, namely, Axis bank, SBM, Syndicate bank and Vijaya bank. But SBM, Syndicate bank and Vijaya bank are not accepting tax payments.

P.M.Bhat, Mysore Grahakara Parishat