you are at liberty to file writ petition in HC against the 3 times increase in commerical tax

2) you can also challenge the decision to impose 100 per cent penalty

3) contact a local lawyer

1)you have to file writ petition in HC against arbitrary increase in commercial tax

2)represenation can be made to the state govt to with draw the unjustified hike in tax and the penalty

doctors , lawyers , CA can use 30%of residential premises for consultations . that would not be regarded as using property for commercial purposes .

2) if more than 30%of flat is used for commercial purposes then they would have to pay commercial water charges , property tax for commercial purposes

3) allahabad HC has held All the petitioners are qualified and registered medical practitioners. They have a right to run their private medical clinics for giving professional advice to the patients. A doctor's clinic run in a portion of the residential house, which may either be small and sufficiently big but which may not occupy the entire area with a waiting hall, a dispensary or even a small diagnostic facility may not convert the user of a premise from a residential user to commercial user. A non-nuisance professional activity running by doctors, lawyers, consultant, architect, chartered accountant, property consultants, government guides may also fall in the same category. The trouble starts when the doctor or any other consultants uses a substantial part of the building, for the activity including the incidental activities such as x-ray, ultrasonography, pathology, operation theatre and wards in which patients are admitted. These activities together with the consultancy, overreaches the limit of the user for professional use.

4) In the present case, we find that all the petitioners are using the residential houses for the purposes of running their clinics and have also converted the use of the dominant portion of the building for providing activities such as x-ray, ultrasonography, pathology, operation theatre, private wards and general wards. Some of these wards are so small, that they may hardly accommodate one bed in the room. The argument advanced by Shri Arvind Srivastava, that such user is incidental to medical practice, cannot be accepted. No reasonable person in such case can say that the user of the building has not been changed from residential to commercial.

14. In these writ petitions all the doctors have extended their consultancy to include the diagnostic techniques as well as admitting patients in the rooms and halls converted as wards. The professional activity in also these cases has converted the user of the house from residential to commercial for which all the doctors have therefor applied for and have electric connections for commercial purposes.

15. The rights given to carry on profession, including medical profession under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, are subject to reasonable restrictions in public interest. Such restrictions can be placed by the law made by the State under Article 19 (6) or may be imposed under an agreement to which the person may subscribe, in the interest of other residents. We do not find that a notice for cancellation of registration is a restriction on the right of a person to practice profession. The UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and Chief Medical Officer have not passed any such orders directing the petitioners to stop medical practice. They have only cautioned them to stop using the premises for commercial purposes. If they want to continue to use the diagnostic techniques and surgeries and admit patients, they should shift the place of their business to some other place, where such activity is permitted. The user of the premises by the professionals for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was allotted or purchased by him is not a restriction on the right to carry on the profession.

16. The medical professionals running nursing homes are also required to obtain registration for running ultrasound machines, permission from the Atomic Energy Commission for the use of x-ray plant and to dispose of the medical waste after obtaining registration and the facilities provided under the Bio Medical Waste Management Rules. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have obtained these permissions and licenses.

17. The restrictions placed by the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad for using a residential accommodation allotted/purchased for any purpose other than residential purposes is also for maintaining a peaceful environment for other residents in the residential colonies. Any business or commercial activity involves these houses to be visited by patients and their relatives, use of motor vehicles, parking, and putting pressure of the civic amenities such as electricity, water, sewer and roads. It also affects the tranquility of the residential area used by the senior citizen and the children. The change of the dominant user of the building in a residential colony not only affects the immediate neighbors but all the residents of the colony and thus it is essential that in the residential colonies, the constructions should be used dominantly for residential purposes.

18. We do not find that the petitioners have been asked to stop their medical practice or to stop the patients visiting in their clinics. They have been simply asked to stop the use of diagnostic techniques including x-ray, ultrasonography, pathology, running of operation theatre, maternity centres and for using their houses for admitting patients. Such an activity is violative of the terms and conditions of purchase and constructions of the houses and the land use, and can be regulated by the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad both by giving notice of cancellation of the allotment or by taking steps to cancel the registration under which such activity is being carried out. The Chief Medical Officer, Etawah has registered the petitioners as medical practitioners, under a declaration given by them to run the consultancy clinics the petitioners. The petitioners are obliged to abide by their declarations.

19. Inspite of the repeated reminders given by the Court, the State Government has not made any law regulating the medical practice including the running of private nursing homes/diagnostic clinics and hospital. In the absence of any law covering the field the Court has to apply the test of reasonableness which may protect both the residents of the colony as well as patients visiting the doctors. It is inhuman for the patients to be given professional service in such small residential buildings. The size of the rooms of operation theatre, private wards and general wards would show that the doctors in order to earn money have converted small houses into nursing homes packing up the patients in unhygienic cubicles. A room measuring 9.5x9.5' can hardly be used as a hygienic private ward, and in any case a room measuring 15.1'x19' cannot be used as a general ward. The petitioners are apparently using the residential accommodation for running nursing homes putting their patients to serious inconvenience.

20. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the notices and the directions given by the Chief Medical Officer to the petitioners to shift their activities other than consultancy including diagnostic, surgical, and admitting the patients to a place other than the residential houses in the Awas Evam Vikas Colony. It will, however, be open to the petitioners to either shift the medical services, except the consultancy from their residential houses in the Awas Evam Vikas Colony to any other place, or to confine their activities in the colony only for consultancy.

A private doctor's clinic is not a commercial establishment, the high court has held, taking medical practitioners out of the purview of the

Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.

A division bench of Justices V M Kanade and P D Kode has struck down a 1977 amendment that included the medical practitioners' establishments. The constitutional validity of the section, 2 (7), was challenged by an Andheri-based gynaecologist, Dr Shubhada Motwani, prosecuted for not registering her clinic. The punishment comprised a fine, calculated for each day of non-registration. She moved court.

Her lawyer, S C Naidu, argued that a medical practitioner's clinic cannot fall within the definition of commercial establishment as a doctor provides service to patients, an activity that cannot be termed commercial. He argued that the amendment had included in its ambit legal practitioners and CAs as well. Lawyers moved court, and the HC held, in 1984, that the amendment was ultra vires (beyond the powers), striking down their inclusion in the definition of commercial establishment. In 2006, CAs were given relief.

In the Motwani case, the judges upheld Naidu's submission that an SC judgment of May 2, 1968 (in Dr Devendra Surti vs State of Gujarat), where it was held that the private dispensary of a doctor is not a commercial establishment, will apply.

Hi

1) The property tax should have been levied only as Residential.

2) It is illegal and against law on the part of municipality to levy property tax as commercial in light of many judgments in Supreme court.

3) You should file a petition in High court challenging the property tax levied.

4) Please see below the contents that have been discussed at length in Supreme court on identical matters:

a) The crux of the judgments on user of residential flats is that even if the entire flat is used by a professional person for the practice of his profession, there is no change of user to a commercial one and there cannot be a prohibition for the same. If the flat is partly used for business office, then also if the dominant user is residential, there is no violation of the provisions relating to the change of user.

b) The Constitution of India, while ensuring under Article 19(1)(g) to all citizens the right to practise any trade, business or profession, has maintained a clear distinction between carrying on a trade or business as against practising a profession. The reason underlying the distinction is that unlike in a trade or business, a profession is practised without any underlying profit motive. What a practising professional renders to his clients is his services essentially based on his qualification, personal skill and intellectual capacity. Earning of fees is considered only an incidental part.

c) Case law on private dispensary: In yet another case of Dr. Devendra M. Surbi, (AIR 1969 SC 63 6T), the Supreme Court had occasion to examine the definition of ‘Commercial Establishment’ in S. 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and establishments Act, 1948. Construing the word ‘Profession’ appearing in association with the words ‘Business and Trade’ in the said subsection, it held that a private dispensary of a medical practitioner did not come within the definition of ‘Commercial Establishment’.

d) In Dev Brat Sharma v. Dr. Jagjit Mehta, C.A. No. 4216 of 1988, the Supreme Court held that the user of residential premises under tenancy for the purpose of a doctor’s clinic did not tantamount to change of user.

Hope this information is useful.

Can l appeal against this in a court of law.

yes, you can file a writ before the high court under article 226 because government has hiked such huge tax which is unreasonable. every action of government should be just, fair and reasonable. today's government is Laissez-faire government to allow the free enterprise system. if system is biased and arbitrary the high court is empowered to take judicial review of such system on the parameter of reasonableness.

What is the procedure for moving court. Are there any other ways of solving the problem.

file a writ directly before the high court under article 226 as writ of mandamus for proper direction to lower down the rate of tax.

The apex court said that 25 per cent of the Floor Area Ratio of the total residential area would be permissible for professional use as opposed to the previous order wherein it had been stated that only 30 per cent of the residential area on the ground floor could be used.

The SC's decision to make permissible the use 25 per cent of the FAR of residential areas for commercial use has come as a welcome relief for professionals operating in the city. "As per the order, doctors will be allowed to run OPDs in residential areas. But any nursing homes operating in the area will have to shift out,"

Thus it cannot be considered as commercial activity, therefore there may not be any need to pay the commercial tax to practice this profession within the residential area.

What is the procedure for moving court. Are there any other ways of solving the problem

You can move court with a petition seeking mandatory injunction and can even take the help of an advocate in the local.

Are there any other ways of solving the problem?

You may make a representation to the cooperative society or the cooperative court or registrar.

Are there any laws on the running of private consultantion practices.?

The supreme court judgment may be taken as an authority.

1. Enhancement of commercial tax can be challenged in the High Court on the ground that it is arbitrary and illegal. 300% increase in the rate of tax appears to be prima facie arbitrary.

2. Registration of clinic is governed by the rules of Medical Council of India, or the rules framed by the state govt. Under the rules of MCI it is not compulsorily registrable.

3. Commercial tax itself cannot be imposed if you were simply carrying on purely consultation work.