This High Court of Madras directed the Chennai Corporation to issue a manual receipt for Rs.50/- collected erroneously due to a clerical mistake and ordered the petitioner to clear future property tax arrears at the corrected rate.
Direction to issue manual receipt for Rs.50/- and to clear arrears at Rs.790/- per half year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.No.27737 of 2017 and WM.P.No.29700 & 29701 of 2017
O.Mangalavinayagam ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to fix responsibility on the Revenue Department of Chennai Corporation who is responsible for assessing and collecting property tax in respect of the writ petitioner's property and consequently to issue proper receipt for the property tax paid by the writ petitioner for the second half of 2012-13 within the time frame to be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Rajamohan
For Respondents: Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok
ORDER
Heard Mr.T.S.Rajamohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the mistake which has occurred while issuing receipt for the payment of property tax for the period second half year 2012-2013. Though the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.790/- by Cheque No.426895 due to
some clerical error, a sum of of Rs.740/- alone was taken on record and receipt was issued by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner had requested for effecting appropriate correction and issuing a proper receipt. The respondent vide letter dated 18.05.2017 accepted the mistake, but however expressed his inability to correct the entry in the official website of the respondent Corporation.
3.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on instruction, submits that it is a fact that an error has occurred and instead of issuing receipt for Rs.790/-, receipt for Rs.740/- has been issued and the respondent will issue a manual receipt for the remaining amount of Rs.50/- and the petitioner may be directed to clear all the arrears of property tax at Rs.790/- per half year with effect from first half of 2013-2014.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection in payment of tax as he is responsible citizen and a retired Deputy Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu. But, nevertheless the respondent Corporation should rectify their mistake and ensure that the petitioner is not put to prejudice at a later point of time.
5.Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent Corporation to issue a manual receipt for Rs.50/- for the property tax which was collected and receipt not issued i.e. for the period second half year 2012-2013. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After receiving the manual receipt for Rs.50/-, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire arrears of property tax for the period from the first half year 2013-2014 till date at the rate of Rs.790/- per half year. This payment shall be effected within a period of three weeks from the date on which the receipt for Rs.50/- is received by the petitioner.
6.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Sgl
To
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction can be issued to the Corporation to issue a manual receipt for an amount collected due to a clerical error?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
O.Mangalavinayagam
The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation
The Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Department
The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone VI
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
