PUNE: Residents of various housing societies in Pimpri Chinchwad are protesting the civic authorities’ decision to charge property tax on amenity spaces in residential complexes. They argue that this decision adds to the financial strain on residents already facing increased maintenance costs.
Recently, several societies received property tax bills ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh for common areas like clubhouses, swimming pools, libraries, and society offices. Residents claim that property tax has historically only applied to individual residential units and that common areas should not be taxed separately.
Representatives from housing societies expressed surprise at this new demand, especially as societies are already incurring significant expenses for essentials like water tankers, sewage treatment plants (STPs), and routine maintenance.
Sandip Yeole, expert director of Horizons at Wakad Cooperative Housing Society, reported receiving a property tax demand of Rs 3.18 lakh for their 266-flat society. “This is the first time we’ve seen such a bill. Every flat owner already pays property tax, so taxing common amenity spaces separately seems unwarranted,” he stated.
Yeole also highlighted the practical challenges of collecting this amount from residents. “According to cooperative housing society bylaws, any annual expenditure beyond Rs 1 lakh requires general body meeting approval. Additionally, determining how to distribute the tax burden among residents, given the varying sizes of flats, could lead to disputes,” he noted.
Similarly, Sachin Gunale from Sanskriti Cooperative Housing Society in Kaspate Wasti mentioned that their 650-flat complex received a tax bill of Rs 5.45 lakh for amenities like the swimming pool and library. “This has come as a shock as we completed our society in 2011, and this is the first such bill we’ve received,” he added.
Gunale stated that they had previously lodged an objection when they received a draft assessment notice six months ago, but their concerns went unaddressed, leading to the final bill being issued.
Residents have claimed that the municipal corporation’s current property tax framework is based on built-up areas, which already encompasses common amenities. “If built-up areas are being taxed, applying an additional charge on amenity spaces results in double taxation,” a resident explained.
However, civic officials clarified that this is not a new tax. A senior official from the property tax department stated that amenity spaces have always been liable for taxation under existing regulations, but many had not been assessed previously.
“Recent surveys aimed at identifying unassessed properties have led us to issue tax bills for amenity spaces that were not previously considered,” said Sachin Pawar, deputy municipal commissioner and head of the property tax department.
The survey has uncovered about 1.54 lakh previously unassessed properties, increasing the total number of taxable properties in the city from roughly 6.3 lakh to 7.84 lakh, thereby expanding the municipal tax base.
Officials noted that under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, the civic body is authorized to recover property tax for up to six previous years if a property has remained unassessed.
Sachin Londhe, president of the Pimpri Chinchwad Cooperative Housing Societies Federation, expressed concerns that housing societies are already burdened by rising costs for services like water tankers and garbage collection, making the new tax on amenity spaces particularly unreasonable.
“Residents are already paying for basic services that the civic body fails to provide adequately. Implementing property tax on shared amenities will only exacerbate their financial difficulties,” Londhe asserted.
He also referenced the BJP city president’s call to eliminate the 0.5% charge on property transfers, urging corporators to exhibit similar commitment towards the amenity tax matter. “If elected officials can oppose the property transfer fee, they should also advocate for the repeal of the amenity space tax with equal determination. Residents shouldn’t have to bear additional costs for facilities they already maintain themselves,” he concluded.
