Madras High Court
Manicka Rm.Sankar Narayana Iyer vs The Commissioner on 8 September, 2020
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.P.(MD)NO.163 OF 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.163 of 2012 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
Manicka Rm.Sankar Narayana Iyer,
Annadhana Darma Fund Trust,
through its General Secretary,
M.N.Radhakrishnan. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
The Corporation of Madurai,
Arignar Anna Maligai,
Madurai. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Ceriorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
final warning notice for attachment in Assessment Nos.69712
tax fixed per half year Rs.28,996/- and 69713 tax fixed per half
years Rs.29,900/- dated 05.12.2011 which was served only on
02.01.2012 issued by the respondent and quash the same and
direct the respondent to issue no due certificate upto 2012 II
half and to levy tax in accordance with law after giving
opportunity of hearing.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali
***
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/4
2 W.P.(MD)NO.163 OF 2012
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The writ petitioner is a trust. The petitioner challenges the impugned demand on the ground that it is hopelessly barred by limitation. The petitioner's counsel would invoke Section 168 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act 1971 in this case. According to him, the demand cannot be made beyond a period of 6 years.
3. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent would fall back on Section 483 of the Act and contend that for a period of 12 years, the demand can be made.
4. I do not want to consider all the rival contentions for the present. It is not in dispute that the impugned demand was made without notice.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 3 W.P.(MD)NO.163 OF 2012
5. The petitioner states that he will remit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said submission is recorded.
6. Therefore, the demand impugned in this writ petition stands quashed. This writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to file of the respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.09.2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
pmu
Note: 1.Issue order copy within one day after the same received by the Court Officers Section.
2.In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
The Commissioner, The Corporation of Madurai, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 4 W.P.(MD)NO.163 OF 2012 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
pmu W.P.(MD)No.163 of 2012 08.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4