Chief Assessor, Property Tax v Town and City Properties Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 December 1966
• Date: 09 December 1966
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 5 of 1966
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chief Assessor

Plaintiff

and

Town and City Properties Ltd

Defendant

[1966] SGHC 29

A V Winslow J

District Court Appeal No 5 of 1966

High Court

Revenue Law–Property tax–Valuation List–Tax payer publishing prospectus stating capital value of properties–Chief Assessor serving notice of intention to amend valuation list to reflect values stated in prospectus–Tax payer objecting–Whether proper notice given–Whether tax payer was owner of all properties concerned–Whether annual value of property should be tied to standard rent of controlled premises

The respondent, a company, published a prospectus that set out the certified capital values of certain properties. The Chief Assessor proceeded to serve notices on the respondent of his intention to amend the valuation list in respect of those properties by relating the annual values to the values shown in the prospectus. The respondent objected to the proposed amendments as (a) there was no valid valuation list which the Chief Assessor could possibly amend because he had not declared in the Gazette under s 10 (1) of the Property Tax Ordinance 1960 (No 72 of 1960) that such a list would be open for inspection for 28 days from the date of the notice in the Gazette; (b) the respondent was not the owner of all the properties, although it owned the shares in the subsidiary companies who were the actual owners; and (c) that the annual value should be tied to the standard rent of the premises where the property was rent-controlled and vacant. The respondent appealed to the Valuation Review Board who held that the Chief Assessor had no jurisdiction to increase the annual values of the properties. The Chief Assessor appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) The requirement in s 10 (1) of the Property Tax Ordinance 1960 for the Chief Assessor to give public notice in the Gazette as to the place and hours between which the valuation list for the ensuing year might be inspected was mandatory. However, the direction as to the period of 28 days that the list should be open for inspection was merely directory: at [18].

(2) A parent company and its subsidiary company were distinct legal entities, and in the absence of an agency contract between the two companies, one could not be said to be the agent of the other. As such, the notices which were sent to the parent company of the owners were defective and s 8 (4) of the Property Tax Ordinance 1960 could not be invoked in aid of the Chief Assessor. Hence, the appeal in respect of the properties which were not owned by the respondent failed: at [19] and [20].

(3) Where the property was rent-controlled, vacant and no material change had taken place to it at the time the proposal to amend its annual value was made, then the annual value of the property had to be tied to the standard rent of controlled premises as that was the only rent which the law allowed the owner to receive: at [28].

A-G v Milne [1914] AC 765 (refd)

Alexander Tennant v Robert Sinclair Smith [1892] AC 150 (refd)

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council v South Wales Traffic Area Licensing Authority [1951] 2 KB 366 (refd)

Greenwood v F L Smidth & Co [1922] 1 AC 417 (refd)

Hennell v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1933] 1 KB 451 (refd)

Port of Spain Corp v Gordon, Grant & Co [1955] AC 389 (folld)

Potts' Executors v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1951] AC 443; [1951] 1 All ER 76 (refd)

Interpretation Act 1965 (Act 10 of 1965)s 50

Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap 2, 1955Rev Ed)s 40

Property Tax (Amendment) Act1965 (Act 24 of1965)

Property Tax Ordinance1960 (No 72 of 1960)ss 2, 8 (4),10 (1),17 (2),18

Amarjit Singh Verrick (Inland Revenue) for the appellant

Mary Lim for the respondents.

A V Winslow J

1 This is an appeal by the Chief Assessor against the decision of the Valuation Review Board delivered on 12 October 1965 which was to the effect that certain categories of properties hereinafter described could not be assessed to tax under the provisions of s 17 (2) of the Property Tax Ordinance 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”).

2 It may be convenient to categorise the properties concerned as follows:

Category A

Land in the course of development upon which buildings are in the course of erection at Stamford Park and Dunearn Road, totalling approximately 52 acres, the capital value of which was certified by Mr Kiong Chai Woon, Licensed Appraiser and Auctioneer, to be $2,969,076.50 on 14 August 1963. This land is owned by Stamford Park Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent company).

Category B

(a2 13 and 15 Scotts Road (owned by Asia Holdings Ltd);

(b2 38 and 40 Cairnhill Road (owned by Greater Land Enterprises Ltd);

(c2 7 to 17 (odd) Tanglin Road (owned by Asia Holdings Ltd); and

(d2 21 Cuscaden Road (owned by the respondents);

the capital...