Madras High Court
Bharatiya Seva Society vs Rameswaram Municipality on 24 August, 2018
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.08.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P(MD)No.3988 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010
Bharatiya Seva Society,
rep. by its Power of Attorney,
S.Narasimhan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Rameswaram Municipality,
rep. by its Commissioner,
Rameswaram,
Ramanathapuram District. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records relating to the impugned demand notice, dated 17.08.2009, in
respect of assessment proceedings Nos.156 pertaining to the Choultry bearing
Door No.26-A, South Car Street, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District and quash
the same and consequently forbear the respondent from collecting any property
tax in respect of the petitioner's Choultry bearing Door No.26A.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Madhavan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Kannan
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notice, dated 17.08.2009, whereby and whereunder the respondent demanded to pay property tax to the tune of Rs.6,294/-.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a charitable organization and it is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. One of the objects of the society is to establish Choultries and Dharmasala for the benefit and welfare of the general public. The petitioner is owning a number of such institutions. One such building is situated in Rameshwaram bearing Door No.26-A, South Car Street, Rameshwaram, known as Bangur Dharma Sala Choultry. The said Choultry is freely available for the use of the pilgrims and no rent is collected from them. In the year 1984, the then Executive Officer of Rameswaram Township certified that the subject building is exempted from levy of house tax. Even then, the respondent has issued the demand notice dated 17.08.2009. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said notice.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is a charitable institution and there is no commercial activities carried out and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get exemption in terms of Section 86(B) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and the Income Tax Department also has granted exemption to the petitioner under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the notice issued by the respondent demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,294/- cannot be sustained. Thus, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that on inspection, the respondent found that the Choultry is now not freely available for the use of pilgrims and rent is collected and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any exemption under Section 83(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. He would further submit that the grant of exemption under Section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act cannot entitle them to claim any exemption for property tax and that the grant of exemption under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be equated with the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, as the definition of the charitable institution in both the Acts are not one and the same. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made on either side.
6. Admittedly, it is only a demand notice. After receipt of notice, the petitioner could have approached the respondent and produced documents to show that he has not been collecting any rent and the building has been used only as Choultries and Dharmasala. But, he has failed to do so. In the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:
(a) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with the relevant documents.
(b) On such production, the respondent shall, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering the documents produced by the petitioner, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent against the petitioner. It is needless to say that if the petitioner does not cooperate with the enquiry, the authority are at liberty to pass appropriate order with the available records.
7. This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Commissioner, Rameswaram Municipality, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.
.