Madras High Court
K. Jayaprakash vs The Executive Authority, Tiruthangal ... on 25 September, 1981
Equivalent citations: AIR1982MAD272, (1982)1MLJ18, AIR 1982 MADRAS 272, (1982) 95 MADLW 109 (1982) 1 MADLJ18, (1982) 1 MADLJ18
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed against enhancement of property tax in between the general revisions, and, according to the petitioner, when respondent has issued a special notice of house tax amendment under R, 10 (3) of the Rules issued under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958, dated 15-4-1976. he has failed to disclose the reasons which prevailed for making a special revision.
2. Rule 10 (3) enables the executive authority to make a special revision but it can be done by him after intimating by a special notice to the owner or occupier of the house that the petition for revising the assessment will be considered, if it reaches the Panchavat office within thirty days from the date of service of such notice.
3. Hence it is not sufficient to merely issue a special notice and straightway enhance the tax unless the representations made by the petitioner opposing the proposed enhancement of tax had been considered and disposed of. The notice served on the petitioner does not state the grounds which prevailed upon the executive authority to revise the tax demands. In the absence of such disclosure as held in Dalavai v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 1 Mad LJ 93 whenever special notice is issued, it is obligatory for the concerned tax authority to disclose reasons for the conclusion arrived at therein. No doubt the said decision was rendered under the Tamil Nadu City Municipal Corporation Act, but the principles enumerated therein would be equally applicable in respect of the special notice issued under the Panchayat Act. The learned Judge stated-
"Unless the assessee is told as to what is the reason for the enhancement in the assessment, he may not know on what ground the enhancement has been made. In such cases, he may not be able to -out forward his objections specifically and effectively."
4. Apart from this reason stated in the said judgment, there is yet an other factor, which also has to be taken Rule, them petition, un less the assessee knows the grounds on which enhancement has been made, it would not enable him to prefer effectiely a revision petition. Remedies provided under the Rules or enactments cannot be reduced to ineffectiveness. To make them effective and purposeful remedies particularly when an appeal or revision is provided, it is incumbent on the original authority to state the reasons for the conclusion arrived at. Therefore, it is all the more necessary for the executive authority to state the reasons, so that, the remedy provided under the Rules could be effectively and successfully utilized by affected parties.
5. In this matter, there being no such order passed and served on the petitioner except the special notice issued in a printed form furnishing therein the extent to which the tax is being raised; it becomes all the more necessary to remit the matter to enable the respondent to deal with the matter afresh by passing an order justifying the enhancement.
6. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, he has had the advantage of, an order of stay of the recovery of the enhanced rate of tax. Therefore till orders are passed as directed above, the petitioner would be entitled to the same benefit of continuing to pay taxes at the same rate. but, this would not confer upon him any right to later on claim that he would not be liable to pay any enhanced rate of tax that may be fixed for the period involved in the writ petitions and for later years. With these directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
7. Petition allowed,