UNC loses property tax case

In their ruling, which upheld the appeals of the Commissioner of Valuations and Attorney General, Justices of Appeal Peter Jamadar, Gregory Smith and Judith Jones ruled unanimously that neither interim orders by Justice Seepersad, should have been granted.

In setting aside the two orders, the judges said the public interest would best be served if the voluntary nature of the exercise (submission of the VRFs and supporting documents) was made known. They further ordered that the collection of VRFs could continue only after the first publication of a notice by the Commission, in the three dailies over a period of three weeks and at all Valuation Offices in the country where persons are required to go to submit their documents.

In their ruling, the judges also made it clear the data collection exercise (submission of VRFs) was the statutory responsibility of the Commissioner of Valuations alone. They also reiterated that the court’s order did not impact the future exercise of the Commissioner’s other lawful powers.

In their oral summary, delivered by Justice Jamadar, the judges unanimously held that even though the first order of Justice Seepersad on May 19, expired on May 31 and was ‘spent’, he (Justice Seepersad) was plainly wrong to order it. They said although he cited the correct law, Seepersad did not apply it properly.

They also held that he should not have heard the application of former UNC senator Devant Maharaj ex-parte, as no reason was advanced by him (Maharaj) as to why notice could not have been given to the Commissioner, even as the time for the response to the pre action letter had not yet expired.

The judges also found that the second interim order, granted on May 31, which was to continue until June 27, should not have been granted because there was no written application before the court, supported by evidence.

They said Justice Seepersad failed to give the State an opportunity to put in evidence.

Maharaj challenged the legality of the property tax and Justice Seepersad had set the matters for trial on September 19, at the Port of Spain Supreme Court and September 21 at the San Fernando Supreme Court.

The former UNC senator challenged the legality of Section 6(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 18 of 1969, which commanded every landowner to file a return form, failing which it empowered the Commissioner to notify the owner that he was required to file, failing which he may be liable to conviction.

It was the contention of lawyers led by Senior Counsel Russell Martineau and Deborah Peake, who represented the Commissioner at the appeal, that the exercise of submitting VRFs was always voluntary. Speaking to the media, Maharaj said he was not disillusioned by the court’s ruling, saying the court reinforced the position that the submission of the VRFs is voluntary, contrary to what was being said that it was compulsory and had to be carried out by a particular deadline.

He repeated his call to homeowners to exercise their voluntary option and not submit the forms. Maharaj was represented by a team of attorneys led by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC. The Commissioner was also represented by Ravi Heffes-Doon and Zelicia Haynes-Soo Hon while the AG was represented by Fyard Hosein, SC, Rishi Dass and Sasha Bridgemohansingh.

There was an initial deadline to submit the VRFs by May 22 and this was extended to June 5, by government. According to the Property Tax Act the payment of property taxes is due on March 31 of each year.

The Opposition has raised concerns over implementing the tax during an already uncertain financial period for citizens, asking why the property tax was being implemented during this tough economic period.