Chief Assessor, Property Tax, Singapore v Howe Yoon Chong
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 11 of 1979 |
| Date | 24 July 1980 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1980] SGPC 4
Privy Council
Lord Wilberforce
,
Viscount Dilhorne
,
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
,
Lord Russell of Killowen
and
Lord Roskill
Privy Council Appeal No 11 of 1979
David Widdicombe QC and P Selvadurai (Coward Chance) for the appellant
Geoffrey Rippon QC, James Chia and David Holgate (Jaques & Co) for the respondent.
Ladies Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee [1932] 2 KB 679 (refd)
Sioux City Bridge Co v Dakota County260 US Reports 441 (1923); 67 Law Ed 340 (refd)
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint)Art 12 (1) (consd)
Property Tax Act (Cap 144,1970 Rev Ed)ss 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18 (consd); ss 12 (1),12 (4), 18 (1),18 (7)
Property Tax (Amendment) Act 1973 (Act 24 of 1973)
Rating and Valuation Act1925 (c 90) (UK)
Constitutional Law–Equality before the law–Valuation list with disparate valuations of similar properties–Inequalities due to inadvertence or inefficiency–Whether violation of equality clause–Article 12 (1) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint)–Revenue Law–Property tax–Annual value–Valuation list–Revision of annual value of land by Chief Assessor–Valuation list containing values fixed at different times–Similar properties may have different valuations–Whether valuation list valid–Sections 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18 Property Tax Act (Cap 144, 1970 Rev Ed)
On 4 April 1973, the appellant became the owner of a one-half undivided share in a plot of land. He gave a notice of transfer to the respondent, the Chief Assessor. The Chief Assessor proposed that the annual value of the land be amended from $1,340 to $26,000 with effect from 4 April 1973. The appellant objected to the increase but the Chief Assessor stood by his proposal and prepared a valuation list reflecting the annual value of the property as $26,000. Dissatisfied with the Chief Assessor's decision, the appellant appealed to the Valuation Review Board, which dismissed his appeal.
The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the Chief Assessor's proposal to amend the valuation list was invalid.
The Chief Assessor appealed to the Court of Appeal, which restored the assessment. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge had erred in deciding that the Chief Assessor's proposal was invalid, and upheld the validity of the valuation list.
The appellant appealed against that part of the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold the validity of the valuation list. The appellant contended that the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that the valuation list was valid and that, in any event, it should not have dealt with the question of value since the parties had not made any submissions on the issue. In the alternative, the appellant argued that his property, which had been entered in the 1973 valuation list at its up-to-date value, had not been fairly valued in comparison with other properties which appeared in the list at values that were too low, because they were out-of-date. Consequently, his rights under Art 12 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint) had been infringed.
The evidence was that owing to a shortage of manpower, it was not possible to update the assessments of all properties in the valuation list or to assess all new properties. The valuations in the list were a patchwork of values fixed at different dates and over a period of many years. Only a small number of the total properties in the list were reassessed each year.
Held, allowing the appeal and sending the matter back to the Court of Appeal to be remitted to the High Court:
(1) On the evidence, the valuation list was not so fundamentally defective as to be invalid. Even if the list contained more defects than might have been expected owing to shortage of manpower or some other reason, there was no evidence of the massive errors that would be required to justify a conclusion that the list was invalid: at [9] and [11].
(2) A breach of the equal protection clause under Art 12 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore was not established by proving the existence of inequalities due to inadvertence or inefficiency unless they were on a very substantial scale. Where the defects were the result of inadvertence or inefficiency, the test of unconstitutionality would not be substantially different from the test of validity of the list. In this case, defects on the necessary scale had not been proved to exist: at [13].
(3) As neither party addressed the Court of Appeal on the question of value, this would be best determined by a lower court. The case should therefore be sent back to the Court of Appeal for it to remit it to the High Court to determine the question of value: at [17] and [19].
(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Singapore against an assessment for property tax of a vacant plot of land at Peck Hay Road, Singapore. It raises a question of general interest as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor and Another
... Cur Adv Vult ... This appeal is concerned with the valuation for property tax purposes of the appellant`s dwelling house at 9 Binjai Park, Singapore, for the year 1976. The ... ...
-
Eng Foong Ho and Others v Attorney-General
...to persons may nevertheless be unconstitutional. In the Singapore Privy Council decision of Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor, Singapore [1980-1981] SLR 36, the Privy Council (per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, delivering the judgment of the Board), observed thus (at 41, The Constitution, being......
-
Chief Assessor, Property Tax v Howe Yoon Chong
... ... (a) The Chief Assessor erred in law and in fact in increasing the annual value of his property in comparison with other similar properties in Singapore; ... (b) The proposed annual value of $28,800 is manifestly excessive and wrong in law and should remain at $8,400; and ... (c) The proposed valuation or increased valuation of the appellant`s property is ultra vires the Property Tax Act and the Constitution of the Republic of ... ...
-
Eng Foong Ho and Others v Attorney-General
...to persons may nevertheless be unconstitutional. In the Singapore Privy Council decision of Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor, Singapore [1980-1981] SLR 36, the Privy Council (per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, delivering the judgment of the Board), observed thus (at 41, The Constitution, being......