Madras High Court
Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd vs The Commissioner on 11 November, 2014
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.11.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.11862 of 2009 and MP.No.1 of 2009 Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd rep. by its Financial Advisor & Secretary, R.Mani Parthasarathy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. 2.The Revenue Officer, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of confirmation of enhanced assessment of property tax dated 9.4.2009, bearing ref.No.157/08-09 I and bearing Demand No.60171 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reassess the petitioner's factor premises at Padi to property tax as per the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Government, giving due and proper explanation for such assessment. For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Raman For Respondents : Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 9.4.2009, by which, a demand has been made by the first respondent, Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, demanding property tax from the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2008 and to direct the respondents to reassess the property tax in respect of the petitioner's factory premises at Padi as per the guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, giving due and proper explanation for such assessment.
2.The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture of automotive components and its factory is located at Padi, within the jurisdiction of Ambattur Municipality. According to the petitioner, the factory building is about 35 years old and as per the assessment of the Ambattur Municipality, a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was fixed as half yearly property tax payable by the petitioner. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.150 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 12.11.2007, in and under which, certain guidelines were framed for revision of the property tax and the same was followed by another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 23.6.2008, wherein, a ceiling was fixed for enhancement of property tax in respect of factories and the ceiling was said to have been fixed at 100% of the existing tax.
3.Pursuant to the same, the Commissioner of Municipal Administration issued a circular dated 9.1.2008, instructing all the municipalities to cross refer the existing records, including but not limited to building application register, correlation register and D&O License list etc. According to the petitioner, this was in order to detect omissions if any in furnishing property details by the assessees and based on such instructions, the second respondent herein called upon the petitioner to submit a self assessment data in Form I, furnishing particulars with reference to the petitioner's factory and the same was duly submitted by the petitioner as early as on 26.11.2008. Thereafter, without considering the objections, the second respondent issued a Special Notice, proposing to levy 100% enhancement in the property tax, but there was no explanation or calculation furnished, as to how the assessment was enhanced. As the Special Notice issued without furnishing any details relating to assessment, provided scope for expressing the grievance on the issue by way of a revision petition, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the first respondent on 18.3.2009 stating that the action of the second respondent was arbitrary, since no speaking order has been passed and requesting personal hearing on the issue. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for the personal hearing on 9.4.2009, on which date, the petitioner appeared and submitted its objections. Pursuant to the same, depreciation allowed for the buildings was changed from 10% to 25%, while no change was made to any of other calculations. The petitioner would submit that they were also not accorded an explanation with regard to the classification of the property or other issues pertaining thereto. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with an order dated 9.4.2009 served on the petitioner on 23.6.2009, confirming the enhanced assessment and calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- towards half yearly tax as against the current half yearly tax of Rs.1,85,000/-. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner before this court.
4.The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds: (i)it has been passed, without following the guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu Government with regard to assessment of property tax; (ii)it is not a speaking order. (iii)the respondents ignored the directions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 23.6.2008 fixing ceiling of 100% enhancement of property tax in case of factories. (iv)the submissions made by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents; (v)the valuation of the building has not been taken into consideration; (vi)Uniform rate of Rs.2.75/- per sq.ft. has been fixed, without considering the age of the buildings etc. (vii)depreciation of the value of the buildings has not been accurately ascertained. For the above grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 100% enhancement of the property tax is arbitrary and unsustainable.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6.On perusal of the impugned order and the documents filed in the form of typed set of papers, along with this writ petition, it is evidently clear that the first respondent has not passed the speaking order. In fact, Other group of companies had earlier approached this Court by filing a batch of writ petitions in WP.No.9506 to 9509 of 2009 for identical relief and by order dated 19.5.2009 made in MP.Nos.1 to 1/2009, the writ petitions were entertained and interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the amount demanded within four weeks. The petitioner has raised various objections. It is seen from the records that after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, there was only a change in the depreciation from 10% to 25%. In other respects, there is nothing on record to show that the objections of the petitioner were considered. In my considered view, the respondents should consider the petitioner's representation by giving one more opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order, in respect of all the objections raised by the petitioner.
7.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration. The respondents shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner, clearly furnishing details as to the proposed enhancement of property tax in respect of the buildings, which are situated in the petitioner's premises. On receipt of the same, the petitioner is entitled to submit its objections in writing, along with sufficient records to support its claim, such as, age of the building, utility of the T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rk land appended to the building etc. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass a speaking order, after considering the objections and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till such time, the benefit of interim order shall continue, if the petitioner pays the property tax originally fixed, without any default. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
rk Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No 11-11-2014 To 1.The Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. 2.The Revenue Officer, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053.W.P.No.11862 of 2009