Chief Assessor, Property Tax, Singapore v Howe Yoon Chong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1978
• Date: 20 November 1978
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 1 of 1978
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Chief Assessor

Plaintiff

and

Howe Yoon Chong

Defendant

[1978] SGCA 33

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Choor Singh J

and

D C D'Cotta J

Civil Appeal No 1 of 1978

Court of Appeal

Constitutional law–Equal protection of the law–Whether equal protection breached when the valuation of a property is updated while others are not updated at the same time–Federal Constitution (M'sia) Art 8 (1)–Revenue Law–Property tax–Annual value–Valuation–Revision of annual value of land by Chief Assessor–Whether Chief Assessor acted in accordance with the law–Scope of ss 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 18 and 28 Property Tax Act (Cap 144, 1970 Rev Ed)

For property tax purposes, the annual value of a plot of land at Cairnhill was $1,340 since 1953. This piece of land was owned by the respondent's father. On 29 June 1973, the respondent gave notice to the appellant (“the Chief Assessor”) of the transfer of a half-share of the land to the respondent, which was without consideration. On 1 October 1973, the Chief Assessor gave notice to the respondent of the proposed amendment of the 1973 valuation list, increasing the annual value of the property to $26,000. The respondent objected to the Chief Assessor and further appealed the decision to the Valuation Review Board, which upheld the value proposed by the Chief Assessor. The respondent then appealed to the High Court, asserting that the appellant had acted ultra vires his powers under the Property Tax Act (Cap 144, 1970 Rev Ed). The High Court agreed with the respondent and set aside the amendment to the valuation list. The appellant appealed against this decision.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) Section 18 of the Property Tax Act empowers the Chief Assessor to amend the Valuation List in respect of a property included in the valuation list where he is of the opinion that its annual value does not correctly represent the annual value evidenced by, inter alia, the consideration paid on the sale of “similar property”. Section 18, and in particular s 18 (7) (a) (iii), does not limit the discretion conferred on the Chief Assessor to amend the valuation list in respect of a property included therein only to cases where there has been a sale or transfer for consideration or for value of that property: at [13].

(2) As to the assertion that the amendment infringed the respondent's constitutional right to equality, no case can be made on the evidence, direct or by inference, of an intentional and arbitrary discrimination by improper execution of his statutory duties on the part of the Chief Assessor against the respondent, nor can the evidence support a finding that there was intentional systematic undervaluation by the Chief Assessor of other taxable properties in the same class as the respondent's property: at [29].

(3) The law, as enacted by the Act, is that each property should be assessed independently and in accordance with the provisions in the Act. It would be contrary to common sense, if, complying with the provisions of the Act the Chief Assessor arrives at a correct sum for a property, his assessment is struck down as contrary to Art 8 (1) because other comparable properties have been incorrectly assessed by him. It would be patently absurd for a court to say to the Chief Assessor that although he had assessed a property in accordance with its correct annual value, he had acted unlawfully or ultra vires Art 8 (1) because he should have, at the same time, corrected incorrect assessments of other comparable properties so that all comparable properties are thus uniformly assessed: at [32].

Ladies' Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee [1932] 2 KB 679 (folld)

R v Paddington Valuation Officer, ex parte Peachey Property Corp [1966] 1 QB 380 (distd)

Sunday Lake Iron Co v Wakefield247 US 350 (refd)

Property Tax Act (Cap 144,1970 Rev Ed)ss 18 (1), 18 (2), 18 (3), 18 (4), 18 (7) (consd); ss 2,6 (1), 6 (2),8, 9, 10,17 (1), 28

Federal Constitution (M'sia) Art 8 (1)

Geoffrey Rippon QC, James Chia and G Singh (Inland Revenue) for the appellant

D G Widdicombe QC and P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Davidson) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 In 1960 Parliament passed an Act called the Property Tax Ordinance 1960 (now called the Property Tax Act (Cap 144, 1970 Rev Ed) and hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Its long title reads as follows:

An Ordinance to provide for the levy of a tax on immovable properties in lieu of the rates previously leviable by local authorities and to regulate the collection thereof.

2 The Act came into operation in 1961 and, as is apparent from its long title, is a Tax Act and not a Rating Act. The Act provides for a tax on ownership of immovable properties in terms of ss 6 (1) and 6 (2) which reads as follows:

1. 6 (1) Commencing from 1 January 1961 a property tax shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be payable at the rate or rates specified hereinafter for each year upon the annual value of all houses, buildings, lands and tenements whatsoever included in the Valuation List authenticated under section 13 of this Act and amended from time to time in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

2. (2) The tax shall be payable half-yearly in advance without demand, by the owner of such property at the offices of the Comptroller or other prescribed place or places in the months of January and July or within such other time in each half year as is prescribed.

3 Section 8 of the Act specifies the rate of tax and reads as follows:

1. 8 The tax payable in respect of each year shall be at the rate of thirty-six per cent upon the annual value of every property included in the Valuation List: Provided that the Minister may by order published in the Gazette direct that the tax payable in respect of properties within any area or areas shall be at such a rate or rates being less than the rate prescribed by this section for such period or periods as may seem equitable to the Minister:

   Provided also that the Minister may by order published in the Gazette direct that the tax payable in respect of –

   1. (a) any dwelling-house or part thereof; or

   2. (b) any industrial premises,

occupied as such by the person whose name appears in the Valuation List as the owner of the property concerned, shall be at a rate less than the rate prescribed by this section.

4 The present appeal arises out of the Chief Assessor's proposal to revise upwards the annual value for the year 1973 of a vacant plot of land TS XXVII Lot 61-134 with an area of approximately 15,000sq ft situated in a quiet and residential district known as Cairnhill. This property is owned by Howe Yoon Chong, the respondent and another as tenants in common in equal shares. The annual value of this property had stood at $1,340 since 1953 as then assessed under the Municipal Ordinance (when a rating system was in force). The Chief Assessor proposed to assess the annual value at $26,000 for the year 1973. He had to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and so we must now look at the relevant provisions of the Act. These provisions read as follows:

1. 2 In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires – 'annual value', as used of a house or building or land or tenement … means the gross amount at which the same can reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, …

Provided that –

…

1. (b) in assessing the annual value of any property the 'annual value' of such property shall, at the option of...