Allowed

Wheels India Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Madras HC12 Dec 2017WP/9506/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows four identical writ petitions filed by companies challenging property tax enhancement orders. The Court held that the assessing authority failed to consider objections and issue speaking orders, drawing favorable comparison from a related group litigation. Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed, and matters were remanded for fresh consideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders quashed and matters remanded to respondents for fresh consideration on merits with a speaking order within three months.

Wheels India Ltd. Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.9506 to 9509 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2009

¶6

W.P.No.9506 of 2009

¶7

Wheels India Ltd.,
rep. by its President (Finance) &
Secretary, Mr.S.Srivatsan,
Padi, Chennai-600 050. ... 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

¶8

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 assessment of property tax dated 09.04.2009, bearing Ref No.156/08-09 I, and bearing Demand No.60168, issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reassess the petitioner's factory premises at Padi to property tax as per the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Government, giving due and proper explanation for such assessment.

¶9

W.P.No.9507 of 2009

¶10

Sundaram Clayton Ltd., rep. by its Sr.Manager-Legal, Mr.Viswanathan, Jayalakshmi Estate, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. ... Petitioner

¶11

Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

¶12

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

¶13

2.The Revenue Officer, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053. ... Respondents

¶14

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 assessment of property tax dated 09.04.2009, bearing Ref No.142/08-09 I, and bearing Demand No.60169, issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reassess the petitioner's factory premises at Padi to property tax as per the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Government, giving due and proper explanation for such assessment.

¶15

W.P.No.9508 of 2009

¶16

Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., rep. by its President-Finance & Secretary, Mr.V.G.Jagannathan, No.98A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

¶17

2.The Revenue Officer, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053. ... Respondents

¶18

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 assessment of property tax dated 09.04.2009, bearing Ref No.147/08-09 I, and bearing Demand No.60170, issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reassess the petitioner's factory premises at Padi to property tax as per the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Government, giving due and proper explanation for such assessment.

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.9509 of 2009

¶21

Lucas TVS Ltd., rep. by its DGM-Taxation & Secretary, Mr.N.Nambirajan, MTH Road, Padi, Chennai-600 050. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶22

1.The Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

¶23

2.The Revenue Officer, Ambattur Municipality, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053. ... Respondents

¶24

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 assessment of property tax dated 09.04.2009, bearing Ref No.116/08-09 I, and bearing Demand No.60166, issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reassess the petitioner's factory premises at Padi to property tax as per the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Government, giving due and proper explanation for such assessment.

¶25

Heard Mr.Gautham S.Raman, representing Mr.P.R.Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

2.The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the enhancement of property tax in respect of the building owned by them. In respect of one of the group companies of the petitioner viz., Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., which also has its factory in Padi, identical enhancement of property tax was put to challenge in W.P.No.11862 of 2009. The Court after hearing the learned counsel on either side, allowed the writ petition by

¶27

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

¶28

order dated 11.11.2014, and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

¶29

“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.

¶30

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 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.

¶31

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

¶32

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶33

3.The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the above order has been given effect and the Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., has paid the tax as proposed by the respondents and addressed that similar direction can be issued in this writ petition as well.

¶34

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be allowed on the same terms, which was done in the case of group of companies.

¶35

5.Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed on the same terms and the impugned orders are quashed with similar directions. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner,
Ambattur Municipality,
MTH Road, Ambattur,
Chennai-600 053.
2.The Revenue Officer,
Ambattur Municipality,
MTH Road, Ambattur,
Chennai-600 053.

¶37

+3cc to Mr.K.Soundararajan, Advocate sr.88930

¶38

W.P.Nos.9506 to 9509 of 2009

¶39

ak(co) nr 11/01/2018

¶40

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

Wheels India Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wheels India Ltd. 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

Mr.Gopalan Thygarajan Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Tvl. Harin Bio Tech Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

B.Sreeram, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by

Cholamandalam Investment Vs Assistant Commissioner of

M/s.Kawarlal & Co., Vs The Joint Commissioner of

M.O.Mohamed Rizvi, Vs The Commissioner