(1988)1988 March 16 [PIKJS, J.] INTHEMATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION S A WASTEKLOS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THE MINISTRYOFFINANCE, 2.THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 3.THEIMMOVABLEPROPERTYTAXOFFICE ANDCAPITAL GAINSTAX OFFICE, Respondents. (CaseNo.454/87). Taxation—TheImmovable Property TaxLaw, 1980(Law24180), asamended by Law 21/81—Payment bypurchaser of land to the vendor of the sum, which the vendorhadpaid astax onthe subjectproperty in respect ofthe period thatelapsedbetweenthe contractofsaleandthetransferofproperty tothepurchaser—Section 7
(3)of theaforesaid law—Thethree prerequisitesthereunderfor a refundofthetaxtothetransferee—The taxmusthave beenadded tothepurchaseprice,thecontractofsalemusthave beenregisteredunder Cap.232, andproofthatthetaxpaid exceedsthetaxwhichthe purchaser would havebeenliabletopay—Pattichis v.TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 884 followed. The facts of thiscaseappearsufficiently in theJudgmentof theCourt. Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. 558 3 C.L.R. Teklos v. Republic Casesreferredto: Pattichisv. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.884. Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to refund to applicant tax or any part thereof paid by thepredecessors in title of theapplicant under theprovisions of the Immovable Property TaxLaw. (Law No.24of 1980) (asamended). Chr.Adamou, for the applicant. Y. Lazarou, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 15 20 25 30 PIKIS J. read the following judgment. This is an application forreviewof thevalidity of thedecision oftheDirectorof theDepartment of Inland Revenue, refusing the refund of tax or any partthereofpaid bythepredecessorsintitleof theapplicant under theprovisionsof theImmovableProperty TaxLaw. ((Law 24/80 (as amended)). The refusal was founded on the provisions of s. 7
(3)of the law (introduced byLaw 21/81);whereas the property hadbeenpurchasedin 1978,evidencedbyacontract inwriting,it was not transferred until the 16th Janyary, 1986, when he discharged the monetary obligations thereunder. In addition to the purchaseprice hepaid over tothevendors asumof £495.-representing tax paid by the transferors for the period that elapsed between the sale and theconveyance of theproperty. Applicant assumedpossession of thebuilding siteimmediately after thepurchase and, in fact, erected a house thereon. The amount representing tax and interest for delayed payment (£495.--) was not added to thepurchase price but was paid directly to the Archbishopric of Cyprus,thevendorsof the property. Inorderfor thepurchaser toqualify for arefund of immovable property tax he must satisfy the following three prerequisites 559 PikisJ. Teklosv.Republic
(1988)(s.7
(3)ofthelaw):(a)Thetaxmusthavebeenaddedtothepurchaseprice; (b) thecontract of sale must have been registered under the provisionsofs.2oftheSaleofLand(SpecificPerformance)Law - Cap.232,and 5 (c)proof thatthetaxpaid,includingthetaxaddedtothepurchaseprice,exceedstheamountofpropertytaxtowhichhewas liableunderthelaw. Theobject andinterpretation ofthelaw,aswellasitsconstitutionality, were examined in Pattichis v. Republic,
(1987)3 10 C.L.R.884,acopyof whichwasappendedtotheaddressofthe respondents.Weneed notreciteanypartofthejudgment,saveto emphasizethat toqualify forarefund thetaxpayermust satisfy eachoneofthethreeprerequisitesstipulatedbys.7
(3)ofthelaw. On his own admission, applicant had notregistered thecon- 15 tractundertheprovisionofCap.232,afactinitself disqualifying the applicant from relief. Moreover, hedoesnotappear tohave satisfied any of the other two prerequisites. Seemingly, the amountoftaxpaidtotheArchbishopric wasnotaddedtothepurchaseprice;alsoitdidnotappearnorwasthisaspectoftheclaim 20 of the applicant ever properly articulated that the taxpaid was higher than theamount towhichhewouldbepersonallyliable. Theapplicationmustnecessarily bedismissed. Therecourseisdismissed.Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. 25 Noorderastocosts. 560