Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor, Singapore and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 24 October 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGHC 31
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 53 of 1980
• Date: 24 October 1984
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1984
• Plaintiff Counsel: P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Dandson)
• Citation: [1984] SGHC 31
• Defendant Counsel: Lucy Hangchi
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Assessment of property tax,Equal protection of the law,Constitutional Law,Increase in annual value after renovations,Revenue Law,Property tax,art 12(1) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,Annual value,Increase in annual value,Renovation,Administrative practice,Whether owner-occupier unfairly treated in relation to other owner-occupiers,ss 2, 17(4), 18(7) & 19(3) Property Tax Act (Cap 144)

In this appeal, Mr Howe Yoon Chong, seeks to invalidate as unconstitutional the administrative practice of the Chief Assessor with regard to the 1976 annual value of his home known as No 9 Binjai Park, Singapore (the property). Unlike the other case, Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor [1980-1981] SLR 36 where he unsuccessfully sought to invalidate the entire valuation list of Singapore, he is in the case before me complaining that by reason of an aspect of the administrative practice of the Chief Assessor he has not been accorded the equal protection of the law under art 12(1) of our Constitution.

If the appellant has made good his complaint, he must succeed. The Constitution is the supreme law of Singapore and its provisions of course must prevail over any administrative practice inconsistent with any of them.

The matter has arisen in this way. On its completion in 1966 the property was ascribed an annual value of $2,400. It was and remains a two-storey bungalow erected on a piece of land of 18,902 sq ft and located in a high class residential estate known as `Binjai Park`. Following a `general assessment` in 1970 of all properties in Binjai Park, the annual value of the property was raised to $8,400. Since the property was owner-occupied, the yearly property tax payable was only $552 and the appellant enjoyed the concessions which were universally granted by the Comptroller of Property Tax to all owner-occupiers in Singapore. Although the nett floor area of the building was 3,547 sq ft, I should mention, for the sake of understanding what follows later in this judgment, that for the purpose of calculating the annual value, the Chief Assessor had in 1970 ascribed to the building in the property the `reduced` area of 2,340 square feet, producing therefore a unit rate of annual value of $3.59 per sq ft.

In December 1975 the appellant caused to be carried out substantial alterations and additions to his home at the cost of $48,000 and notice thereof was given to the Chief Assessor under s 17(4) of the Property Tax Act (Cap 144) (the Act). The number of bedrooms was increased from two to five. The new floor area of the renovated building was 5,554 sq ft although, again, for the purpose of calculating annual value, the `reduced` area was put at 4,526 sq ft.

By a letter dated 23 August 1976 the Chief Assessor gave the appellant notice that he proposed amending the 1976 Valuation List by increasing the annual value of the property from $8,440 to $28,800. On the same day, the Comptroller of Property Tax gave notice under s 19(3) of the Act that property tax of $1,224 per year was payable with effect from 1 December 1975. The appellant objected unsuccessfully before the Valuation Review Board. A valuer of the Chief Assessor`s office explained how the proposed annual value of $28,800 was arrived at. He said in evidence that he made a study of the actual rentals of two-storey bungalows in the Binjai Park. The monthly comparables ranged from $2,200 for an unfurnished letting to $4,750 on a furnished basis. In his opinion, he thought that the monthly rental value of the property was $2,400 unfurnished, or $28,800 per annum. Applying this estimate to its `reduced` area of 4,526 sq ft, he obtained a unit rate per square foot of...