The Court of Appeal has ruled the Government’s attempt to implement the property tax in 2017 was illegal, as it imposed a fine for non-compliance, although the process was supposed to be voluntary.

In a unanimous decision on Friday, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, Charmaine Pemberton and Vasheist Kokaram reversed a decision of the High Court, which had dismissed a challenge by former minister Devant Maharaj.

Maharaj challenged the legality of the Commissioner of Valuations’ decision to “require all property owners to submit a valuation return form (VRF),” saying it was illegal and infringed his rights.

In her ruling, Justice Jacqueline Wilson said it was clear from the commissioner’s evidence that the submission of the form was voluntary.

But the Appeal Court said it was not voluntary, at least until the appellate court intervened in 2018 and ordered that this should be communicated to the public since previously there was a $500 fine for non-compliance.

“Action by the State in imposing obligations on citizens without the authority of law is incompatible with the rule of law,” the court said in its ruling.

[caption id="attachment_839497" align="alignnone" width="1011"] Devant Maharaj.[/caption]

“...Further, statutory powers are not exercised in a vacuum, especially powers that attract penal consequences.”

The judges also added, “There is no basis in a constitutional democracy subject to the rule of law for compelling compliance by citizens with a requirement without informing them of the legal basis for any such requirement.”

The court granted a declaration that before June 10, 2017, neither Maharaj nor any property owner was under a legal obligation to submit a VRF and “supporting documents” under the former data-collection exercise as requested.

It also ruled that the State cannot prosecute any property owner for failing and/or refusing to submit the VRF, and the requirement to submit personal and private data before June 10, 2017, was a breach of the right to private life.

The court said its decision did not extend to the current data-collection exercise. The deadline for submission under the new policy is January 31.

“Nothing herein is intended to be construed as affecting that exercise which is not before this court on this appeal,” Rajkumar said.

He said those who submitted forms previously could leave their data in the system for use now.

“In relation to the information already collected…some persons may be content to have their information remain with the commissioner even though they provided it on the basis that it was mandatory that they do so rather than go through the entire exercise at such future time if required,” Rajkumar said.

In her decision, Wilson threw out Maharaj’s contention that the deadline for the payment of taxes expired on April 1, 2010, when the Lands and Building Taxes Act was repealed by the Property Tax Act.

He also claimed when the act was further amended in 2015, it provided a waiver of payments.

Wilson disagreed, saying it would be “incongru