Property tax injunction extended

Justice Frank Seepersad ruled in the San Fernando High Court that the commissioner is further restrained from collecting Valuation Return Form (VRF) from property owners, or, even issuing such forms to members of the public.

The order flies in the face of Finance Minister Colm Imbert announcement that persons could have done so on their own volition even after Justice Seepersad had on May 19, granted a conservatory order to Devant Maharaj against the commissioner collecting the forms.

The effect of the judge’s order by granting an injunction, is that no person representing the government can speak to the population about property tax in a manner that sways them to even become inclined to file VRF at revenue offices without risking being held in contempt of court.

The judge’s May 19 order, however, had been appealed and appellate judges will hear that matter next week Tuesday, but there has been no stay of the order. Wednesday was the last day for the conservatory order to take effect and a Case it was the scheduled date for Management Conference hearing of Maharaj’s judicial review application against the commissioner.

During the hearing, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan made an oral application for the judge to extend the May 19 stay. Senior Counsel Russell Martineau leading Deborah Peake SC, argued against it, so to did Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein representing the commissioner.

Hosein submitted that the May 19 order was now spent. Martineau submitted that an application to extend the stay should have been filed served so that the parties could make submission on whether the application had merit. In the end, Justice Seepersad delivered a 28-page judgment in which he ruled that it was just for the court to consider an oral application to extend the stay, premising on the fact that from the outset, the State was part of the proceedings in which they had an input and had articulated full arguments on the subject matter.

The court on its own accord, Justice Seepersad stated, can give directions to ensure the expeditious trial of the case. The court also had to consider, he stated, where the balance of the justice lies and the risk involved in either granting or refusing to grant. The Property Tax Act has been on the law books since 2011, the court noted, but never implemented.

Justice Seepersad also felt that it seems that a great risk of prejudice lies in the continuation of the government collecting the VRF in the face of the existing Property Tax law and the curt feels that unless the issues are resolved at the trial, the court should not permit the collection of the VRF from people. He further stated that the court is however mindful, that the commissioner and the State have not had the full opportunity to consider Ramlogan’s application for the stay to be extended, but the overriding objective and the interest of justice is best served by the grant of an interim order until such time all the relevant information is placed before the court.