Chief Assessor, Property Tax, Singapore v Howe Yoon Chong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 27 March 1978
• Date: 27 March 1978
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 30 of 1975
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Howe Yoon Chong

Plaintiff

and

Chief Assessor

Defendant

[1978] SGHC 16

A P Rajah J

Originating Motion No 30 of 1975

High Court

Administrative Law–Ultra vires–Whether regulations made ultra vires–Property Tax (Fees) Regulations 1975 (GN No S 355/1975)–Revenue Law–Property tax–Valuation list–Amendment of valuation list–Transfer of bare legal interest without consideration–Whether evidence existed that previous valuation is or has become inaccurate–Section 18 Property Tax Act (Cap 144, 1970 Rev Ed)

The appellant appealed to the High Court against the decision of the Valuation Review Board to raise the annual value of vacant land owned partly by the appellant, to whom the bare legal interest in one-half of the property had been transferred. The Valuation Review Board had affirmed the decision of the Chief Assessor to amend the valuation list by increasing the annual value of the property, and a notice under s 18 (2) was served on the co-owners of the property.

The appellant in his appeal sought the production by the Chief Assessor of valuation lists for several years. The Chief Assessor declined to do so without payment of the prescribed fee, relying upon the Property Tax (Fees) Regulations 1975 (GN No S 355/1975).

As to the grounds of the appeal proper, the appellant contended that there was no basis for the Chief Assessor to have issued the notice under s 18 (2), as the grounds listed in s 18 (7) for such notice were not met. In particular, it was argued that s 18 (7) (a) (iii), which allowed for variation if the previous valuation was invalid as evidenced by consideration for the transfer of the land, was not applicable as the transfer to the appellant was not one for consideration. It was further contended that if indeed consideration passed, s 18 (7) (a) (iii) had no application where, as in the case here, the original owner remained as co-owner.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The appellant was entitled to a free inspection of the lists since the Property Tax (Fees) Regulations 1975 only prescribed fees for written or verbal information. Although the Minister had the necessary power to raise fees under s 47 (1) of the Interpretation Act (Cap 3, 1970 Rev Ed), the regulations were purported to be made under s 63 of the Property Tax Act, which did not empower the Minister to levy fees. The regulations were therefore ultra vires and void: at [21], [24] and [25].

(2) The transfer to the appellant was one for which no consideration had passed. Therefore there was no basis for the issue of the notice under s 18 (2), and the proceedings stemming from it were null and void: at [33] and [35].

Ladies' Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee [1932] 2 KB 679; [1932] All ER Rep 427 (distd)

Interpretation Act (Cap 3,1970 Rev Ed)s 47 (1)

Property Tax Act (Cap 144,1970 Rev Ed)s 18 (consd);ss 4, 63

Property Tax (Fees) Regulations1975 (GN No S 355/1975)

Rating and Valuation Act 1925 (c 90) (UK)

D G Widdecombe QC and P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Davidson) for the appellant

James Chia and G Singh (Inland Revenue) for the respondent.

A P Rajah J

1 This is an appeal from an order of the Valuation Review Board (“the Board”), made on 10 December 1975, in Valuation Review Board Appeal No 80 of 1974 raising the annual value of a piece of vacant land known as TS 27 Lot Number 61 at Peck Hay Road, Singapore, from $1,340 to $26,000. A short history of this property may be of interest.

2 On 27 October 1951, one Lim Chong Pang and Lim Chong Min, administrators of the estate of Wee Peck Hay, the widow of Lim Nee Soon, sold the property to one Oh Moh See for the sum of $26,775. Its annual value was then fixed at $1,340 which, to the nearest figure, is 5% of the sale price.

3 On 20 November 1960, Oh Moh See sold the property to one Howe Min Cheng and another who purchased it as tenants-in-common in equal shares for $20,000. No steps were taken either by the Chief Assessor or by the owners to reassess the annual value, even though the sale price of the property had been reduced by about 25%. If the annual value had been fixed on the then sale price it would have been $1,000.

4 On 4 April 1973, there was a transfer by Howe Min Cheng of the one undivided equal half-share standing in his name to the appellant. The deed of transfer was duly stamped at $10 as a deed on which no consideration had passed, the Commissioner of Stamps having made all necessary inquiries and having satisfied himself that no beneficial interest passed thereunder and that only a bare legal estate passed from the transferor to the transferee, the appellant.

5 A notice of transfer by the transferor of the said one was [sic] undivided equal half-share dated 29 June 1973, was sent to the Chief Assessor in the normal way. The Chief Assessor thereupon served a notice dated 1 October 1973, on the co-owners under s 18 (2) of the Property Tax Act (Cap 144, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) to amend the valuation list by increasing the annual value of the said property from $1,340 to $26,000 with effect from 4 April 1973. The appellant objected to such amendment and gave notice of such objection to the Chief Assessor. The Chief Assessor turned down the objection and the appellant thereupon appealed on 29 March 1974, under s 18 (4) of the Act to the Valuation Review Board.

6 A report purporting to be from the Chief Assessor under s 28 (1) of the Act dated 1 November 1974, was sent to the Valuation Review Board. Under this section the Chief Assessor “shall… submit to the Board a report setting out the facts of the case, together with his recommendations, if any, for revision of the annual value”. All that the report is statutorily required to set out is:

1. (a) the facts of the case, and

2. (b) his recommendations, if any.

7 However, it will be noticed that the Chief Assessor in his report, which was marked “Confidential”, set out his basis of assessment, comparisons and his submission and that this is something more than what he was statutorily obliged to do.

8 Under the Act the Chief Assessor is not called upon to give a copy of the report to the taxpayer. It would seem, therefore, more particularly as it is marked “Confidential”, that it is a document intended for the sole use and convenience of the Board.

9 The appeal came on for hearing before the Valuation Review Board on 10 December 1975. The appellant's valuer gave sworn evidence on which he was cross-examined. The Chief Assessor himself gave no evidence nor did he call anyone to give evidence on his behalf.

10 The Valuation Review Board in its oral grounds of decision, dated 10 December 1975 did not accept the evidence of the appellant's...