CDL Properties Ltd v Chief Assessor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 January 2012
• Date: 09 January 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 29 of 2011
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

CDL Properties Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Chief Assessor and another

Defendant

[2012] SGCA 1

Chan Sek Keong CJ

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeal No 29 of 2011

Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure—Appeals—Appeal to Valuation Review Board involving only Chief Assessor as respondent—Owner subsequently adding Comptroller of Property Tax as respondent in appeal to High Court—Whether proper for owner to include Comptroller of Property Tax as respondent in appeal to Court of Appeal

Revenue Law—Property tax—Appeals—Chief Assessor reassessing annual values of properties—Owner paying increased property tax pending appeal to Valuation Review Board—Valuation Review Board subsequently ordering increase in annual values of certain properties to take effect only from later date—Whether interest should be awarded on property tax overpaid by owner

Revenue Law—Property tax—Chief Assessor reassessing annual values of properties in middle of calendar year—Whether increased property tax payable to Comptroller of Property Tax immediately or only from 1 January of following year

The appellant company (‘CDL’) owned Republic Plaza (‘RP’), a large commercial building situated at Raffles Place. In June 2007, several notices signed by a ‘Ms Ang Sock Tiang’, who described herself as ‘Chief Assessor and Asst Comptroller of Property Tax’, were issued to CDL (‘the Disputed Notices’). The Disputed Notices stated that pursuant to s 20 (1) of the Property Tax Act (Cap 254, 2005 Rev Ed) (‘the PTA’), the Chief Assessor intended to increase the annual values of 117 units in RP (‘the 117 Units’) retrospectively. Specifically, the annual values of 115 of the affected units (‘the 115 Units’) would be amended from $4.20 per square foot per month (‘psf/mth’) to $11 psf/mth with effect from 1 January 2007. As for the remaining two affected units (‘the 2 Units’), the increase would be the same, but with effect from 16 June 2007.

CDL paid the outstanding property tax for 2007 which resulted from the Chief Assessor's reassessment of the 117 Units' annual values and, after unsuccessfully raising an objection with the Chief Assessor, appealed to the Valuation Review Board (‘the VRB’). The VRB dismissed CDL's appeal in respect of the 2 Units. However, in respect of the 115 Units, the VRB ordered that their annual values be set at $7 psf/mth with effect from 1 January 2007 and, thereafter, at$11 psf/mth with effect from the dates of the Disputed Notices (‘the Notice Dates’). Dissatisfied with the VRB's decision, CDL appealed to the High Court, naming both the Chief Assessor and the Comptroller of Property Tax (‘the Comptroller’) as respondents. Before the High Court, CDL alleged, inter alia, that: (a) the VRB's orders were wrong in fact and law; and (b) the VRB should have awarded interest on the overpaid property tax refunded to CDL in respect of the 115 Units following the VRB's decision to reduce the annual values of those units from $11 psf/mth to $7 psf/mth for the period from 1 January 2007 to the Notice Dates (‘the overpaid property tax in respect of the 115 Units’). CDL's appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

CDL then appealed to the Court of Appeal. Before the Court of Appeal, CDL adopted a different approach. Taking a very strict technical reading of s 6 (2) of the PTA, CDL raised the argument that the increased property tax arising from the revision of the 117 Units' annual values was payable to the Comptroller only from 1 January 2008 and not immediately upon the revision being made (viz, the ‘'no immediate liability to pay' argument’). CDL also argued that the High Court was wrong in refusing to award interest on the overpaid property tax in respect of the 115 Units.

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) The Comptroller was not a proper party to the present appeal. In the appeals before the VRB and the High Court, CDL took issue with the quantum of the increase in the 117 Units' annual values. That issue was concerned solely with whether the Chief Assessor's reassessment of the 117 Units' annual values was correct, and had nothing to do with the Comptroller's power to collect any additional property tax that might arise from such reassessment. Similarly, the High Court dealt with only the dispute between CDL and the Chief Assessor. In view of this, there was no appealable issue before the Court of Appeal as far as the Comptroller was concerned. On this basic procedural flaw alone, the appeal should have been dismissed by the High Court in so far as the Comptroller was concerned: at [29] and [30].

(2) CDL had misunderstood the terms of the Disputed Notices. Although they were issued in the name of ‘Ms Ang Sock Tiang’, who described herself therein as ‘Chief Assessor and Asst Comptroller of Property Tax’, they were not issued by her either on behalf of the Comptroller or in her capacity as an Assistant Comptroller. Instead, they were issued on behalf of the Chief Assessor. CDL had also erred in regarding the Disputed Notices as notices demanding payment of property tax. The Disputed Notices were merely intended to notify CDL that property tax based on the revised annual values of the 117 Units was payable even if CDL intended to object to the revision: at [31] and [32].

(3) The ‘no immediate liability to pay’ argument was based on a misapprehension of the provisions of the PTA. It was clear from s 35 A of the PTA that the owner of a property (‘the owner’) was under an obligation, upon the annual value of his property being reassessed by the Chief Assessor, to pay to the Comptroller any additional property tax arising from such reassessment without any demand by or notice from the Comptroller. If the owner failed to do so, the Comptroller could recover the additional property tax under s 35 A (2) of the PTA using the means provided in s 38 A of the PTA. In the event that the owner subsequently succeeded in his appeal to the VRB against the Chief Assessor's reassessment of his property's annual value, he was entitled under s 33 (4) of the PTA to a refund of the excess property tax paid to the Comptroller prior to the appeal. Hence, what was ‘payable to account of tax’ pursuant to s 35 A (1) of the PTA was payable qua property tax and not qua security for the amount of property tax that would finally be determined by the VRB on appeal. As the Comptroller did not have to take steps to collect any additional property tax due on a property as a result of a revision of its annual value, the issue of whether the Comptroller could collect such additional property tax immediately or whether he had to wait until January of the following year - ie, the issue which formed the crux of the ‘no immediate liability to pay’ argument - was thus wholly irrelevant: at [35] to [37].

(4) It was clear from the VRB's grounds of decision that the VRB did not award interest to CDL on the overpaid property tax in respect of the 115 Units on the basis that it could not make any decision on the matter since CDL had not asked for such interest, ie, the VRB did not exercise its discretion at all apropos such interest. In the circumstances, the High Court was entitled to deal with the issue of interest on the merits since s 33 (4) of the PTA did not make it a requirement for an owner to apply to the VRB for interest on overpaid property tax before such interest could be awarded: at [38] and [39].

(5) Since no reason had been given as to why it would be unfair for CDL to be awarded interest on the overpaid property tax in respect of the 115 Units, CDL would be awarded interest on such property tax at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of its payment of such property tax up to the date of the Comptroller's repayment of the same to CDL. To that extent only, the present appeal was allowed: at [40] and [41].

CDL Properties Ltd v Chief Assessor [2009] SGVRB 1 (VRB Appeals Nos 54 to 168 and 172 to 173 of 2008) (refd)

Chief Assessor v Keppel Corp Ltd [1994] 1 SLR (R) 457; [1994] 2 SLR 100 (refd)

Rahimah bte Hussan v Zaine bin Yusoff [1995] 1 SLR (R) 239; [1995] 2 SLR 391 (refd)

Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 1985 Rev Ed) s 52 (3)

Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) ss 29, 29 (1)

Property Tax Act (Cap 254, 2005 Rev Ed) ss 6 (2) (b) , 19 (8) , 21, 22, 33 (4) , 35 A (1) , 35 A (2) (consd) ;ss 2 (1) , 4 (1) , 4 (2) , 6, 6 (1) , 6 (2) , 6 (2) (a) , 10 (1) , 11, 19 (8) (a) , 20 (1) , 20 A, 20 A (1) , 20 A (2) , 20 A (7) , 20 A (8) , 21 (1) , 29, 33 (1) (a) , 35 A, 35 A (1) (d) , 38 A

Property Tax Ordinance 1960 (No 72 of 1960)

Ang Cheng Hock SC, Sunit Chhabra, Tang Siau Yan and Kenneth Lim (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the appellant

Julia Mohamed and Joyce Chee (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) for the respondents.

Judgment reserved.

Chan Sek Keong CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

Introduction

1 This is an appeal by CDL Properties Ltd (‘CDL’) against the decision of the High Court judge (‘the Judge’) in CDL Properties Ltd v Chief Assessor [2011] 2 SLR 1077 (‘the HC Judgment’) affirming the decision of the Valuation Review Board (‘the VRB’) to amend the annual values prescribed by the Chief Assessor for 117 units in the development known as ‘Republic Plaza’ located at 9 Raffles Place, Singapore 048619.

2 The first and second respondents (collectively, ‘the Respondents’) are the Chief Assessor and the Comptroller of Property Tax (‘the Comptroller’) respectively. They are different and distinct entities under the Property Tax Act (Cap 254, 2005 Rev Ed) (‘the PTA’). The Chief Assessor's principal functions and duties, in so far as this appeal is concerned, are as follows:

(a) under s 4 (2) of the PTA, the Chief Assessor is responsible for assessing the annual values of all ‘properties’ (defined in s 2 (1) of the PTA as ‘includ [ing] houses, buildings, lands and tenements’) for the purposes of the PTA;

(b) under s 10 (1) of the PTA, the Chief Assessor is also...