Dismissed

M/s.The Childrens Garden v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Jun 2016WP/10779/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed writ petitions filed by a school society challenging retrospective water and sewerage tax notices. It held that an effective alternative remedy exists under the Tribunal constituted under the CMWSSB Act and disposed of the matter allowing an appeal to be filed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal within 60 days; water connection not to be disconnected; no costs.

M/s.The Childrens Garden Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 02.6.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.10779 to 10781 of 2016 & WMP.Nos.9431 to 9433 of 2016

¶6

M/s.The Children's Garden School Society Madras, rep.by Honourary Secretary Mrs.Sakunthala Sharma ...Petitioner in all the WPs Vs

¶7

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Zone No.9, Ward No.119, Ripon Building, Chennai. 2.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, rep.by its Managing Director, Chennai-2. 3.The Senior Accounts Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, New Area 09 Office, No.1, Dr.Ranga Road, Abhiramapuram, Chennai-18. ...Respondents in all the WPs

¶8

PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari (i) to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in C.M.C.No.109/119/09061/000 being the arrears of tax and surcharges dated 19.1.2016 intimating the arrear of water tax of Rs.5,51,046/- and surcharge of Rs.5,740/- relating to Nos.11 & 12 (11&12), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-4 and quash the said notice as illegal and against the provisions of Section 34 of the CMWSSB Act (WP.No.10779 of 2016); (ii) to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in C.M.C. No.4112/09/119/09064/000 being the arrears of tax dated 29.12.2015 intimating the arrears of water tax of Rs.2,67,132/relating to No.11(6), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4 and quash the said notice as illegal and against the provisions of Section 34 of the CMWSSB Act (WP.No.10780 of 2016) and (iii) to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in C.M.C.No.1/09/119/09062/000 being the arrears of tax and surcharges dated 19.1.2016 intimating the arrear of water tax of Rs.1,10,952/- and surcharge of Rs.1,155/- relating

¶9

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

¶10

to No.3(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-4 and quash the said notice as illegal and against the provisions of Section 34 of the CMWSSB Act (WP.No.10781 of 2016).

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman All WPs For Respondent-1 : Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.N.Jothikumar All WPs

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner is an educational institution and they are aggrieved by the impugned notices demanding water and sewerage tax with retrospective effect from the first half year of 2013 till the second half year of 2015.

¶15

The petitioner would state that the Corporation of Chennai, while fixing the annual value of the building, has not afforded an opportunity to the petitioner and the fixation itself is erroneous and that the petitioner proposes to challenge the said fixation. So far as the amounts demanded are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no order of assessment is passed till date as required to be done under Section 34 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 and that no demand could have been issued without an order of assessment.

¶16

However, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that in similar cases, this Court directed the aggrieved party to approach the Tribunal, which has been constituted under the provisions of the said Act for dealing with such disputes and all those cases are being heard by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having been established under the Statute, provides an effective alternate remedy and the petitioner should not be permitted to bypass that remedy unless there are sufficient and cogent reasons for doing so.

¶17

However, in the instant case, the only ground raised by the petitioner is that there was no order of assessment passed prior to the impugned demands.

¶18

The impugned demands state that as per Section 34 of the said Act, the annual water and sewerage tax has been determined. In any event, since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy, it is but appropriate for the petitioner to approach the said Tribunal and agitate all the issues.

¶19

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

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act and the petitioner is entitled to raise all the issues before the Tribunal. The petitioner is granted 60 days' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file an appeal before the said Tribunal and till then, the water and sewerage connection to the petitioner institution shall not be disconnected. No costs. Consequently, the above WMPs are closed.

¶21

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai,
Zone No.9, Ward No.119,
Ripon Building, Chennai.
2.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage
Board, Chennai-2.
3.The Senior Accounts Officer,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board, New Area 09 Office,
No.1, Dr.Ranga Road,
Abhiramapuram, Chennai-18.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Sivaraman Advocate sr.29974
+2 cc to Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan Advocate sr.29410

¶22

WP.Nos.10779 to 10781 of 2016 &WMP.Nos.9431 to 9433 of 2016 rk(co) aa13/06/2016

¶23

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

M/s.The Childrens Garden v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.The Childrens Garden v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhartiya International Limited Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner

Transcoastal Gargo & Shipping Vs The Principal Commissioner

Mrs.K.Sudha Vs The District Collector

Port and Dock Labour Union Vs The Union of India

The Principal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.The Computer Consultants Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)