Disposed

M/s.Srivatsa Marketing (India) v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Dec 2014WP/31442/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a taxpayer challenging the non-response to objections regarding a revised rental property tax assessment. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner (West Zone) to consider the petitioner's objection letter and pass an appropriate order on merits within eight weeks without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's objections dated 20.7.2014 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

M/s.Srivatsa Marketing (India) Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 02.12.2014

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.31442 of 2014

¶6

M/s.Srivatsa Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director Mr.C.S.Ramasamy ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore-1. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (West Zone), Coimbatore Corporation Coimbatore-2.

¶7

3.The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore-1. ...Respondents

¶8

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass final assessment order by considering the petitioner's objection letter dated 20.7.2014.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Magesh

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pass final orders of assessment by considering their objections with regard to revision of property tax.

¶12

Heard Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the

¶13

petitioner. Mr.K.Magesh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶14

By a notice dated 8.7.2014, the second respondent revised the property tax pertaining to the property belonging to the petitioner at door No.322, M.T.P.Road, Coimbatore-641001, comprising of 4098

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

sq.ft., from Rs.11,398/- to Rs.62,916/- for half yearly with effect from 1.4.2012. Therefore, the petitioner sent their objections on 20.7.2014. Since it did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶17

Considering the limited nature of the prayer sought and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the objections sent by the petitioner dated 20.7.2014 on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore-1.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (West Zone), Coimbatore Corporation
Coimbatore-2.
3.The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore-1.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Magesh, Advocate SR.58299
WP.No.31442 of 2014
BVR(CO)
Eu 11.12.14

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Srivatsa Marketing (India) v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Srivatsa Marketing (India) v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Manickam, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Irudaya Rani Vs the Area Officer

G.Arunprasad, Vs the Secretary

M.Aamira Fathima, Vs The Annamalai University

T.Elangovan Vs The Director

K.Rajaram Vs The Collector