Madras High Court
G.P. Venkatesa Mudaliar vs The Commissioner, Corporation Of ... on 7 March, 2008
Author: V. Dhanapalan
Bench: V. Dhanapalan
ORDER V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. All the above petitions are filed challenging the Property Tax Notice for Current Demand and Arrear Demand.
2. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions are owners of the land mentioned in the writ petitions. For the purpose of calculation of property tax, the annual rental value was fixed and a half yearly tax was also being collected from the petitioners. However, the respondent issued a notice proposing to revise the fair rent and consequently proposing to collect a half yearly tax and such a proposal to revise the tax was to take effect retrospectively. Notices were served on the petitioners. The petitioners sent a detailed reply by way of objection to the respondent and the same are still pending. The petitioners have not received any reply from the respondent so far. However, the respondent in his property tax notice claimed current demand and arrear demand. Aggrieved against such impugned notice, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petitions.
3. Heard Mr. N.S.M. Md. Jafarullah, Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, Mr. N. Nithianandam, Mr. M. Rajasekhar, Mr. S. Sundaresan, Mr. Siva Suyambu, Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Mr. B. Dayaalan, Mr. M. MD. Ibrahim Ali, Mr. K. Govi Ganesan, Ms. R. Hemalatha, Mr. M. AbdulNazeer, Mr. P.S. Sivasubramaniam, Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan, Mr. M.S. Ramesh, Mr. R. Singaravelan, Mr. P.S. Sivasubramaniam, Mr. A. Venkatesan learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Barathidasan, learned Standing counsel for the Chennai Corporation.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the main grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of submission of the objections to the impugned notice, the respondent issued a notice for payment of property tax for current demand and arrears without considering the same. Moreover, no opportunity of personal hearing is given to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent has no power of retrospective enhancement of property tax under the Act.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have contended that the impugned notice cannot be allowed to proceed as the said notice is issued without making proper assessment and calculation and they are not in confirmity with the provisions of law. They also contended that assessment is made unilaterally by the respondent.
6. Mr. V. Barathidasan, learned Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation contended that the assessment made is in confirmity with Section 137(B) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and hence in the case of property tax has not been duly assessed in any half year or year consequent on the building or land concerned having escaped proper determination of its annual value, the Commissioner may, at any time, from the date on which such person should have been assessed, serve on such person a notice assessing him to the tax or fee due and demanding payment thereof within fifteen days from the date of such service. Therefore, there is no infirmity with the impugned proceedings in all these cases. The first respondent has followed the procedure and there is no contravention of any provision of law. It is also open to the respondent to consider the objection including the retrospective effect.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side.
8. It is seen that the petitioners are the owners of the property. They have been served with notice and given fifteen days time to file objection from the service of the notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. The petitioners have filed their objections. Pending consideration of those objections, the respondent issued consequent notice demanding the arrears of property tax without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and also giving retrospective effect. Hence, the petitioners moved this Court challenging the notice. It is not in dispute that the first respondent valued the properties of the petitioners and issued notice. Even before taking into consideration of the objections filed by the petitioners, the consequent notice of demanding arrears of property tax was issued to the petitioners. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court after considering the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side, found that it is not in dispute that impugned notices were sent to the petitioners proposing to revise tax and that the petitioners have sent objections. The demand of current tax and arrears of tax were made even before considering the objections and no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners and hence the impugned notice cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The Writ petitions are allowed. However, the matters are remitted back to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after considering the objections and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. In the meantime, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners to collect the tax amount pursuant to the demand notice. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is not prevented by this order from paying the property tax upto date at the pre-revised date. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.