Allowed

Dr.B.Mahender, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC25 Apr 2018WP/10174/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a Writ Petition under Article 226 quashing a Corporation's notice in Form No.7. The notice attempted to revise property tax for three distinct assessment numbers. The Court held a single notice cannot revise tax for multiple unmerged assessment numbers.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice in Form No.7 dated 22.12.2017 set aside; Respondent given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Dr.B.Mahender, Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10174 OF 2018 AND W.M.P.NO.12117 OF 2018

¶6

Dr. B.Mahender 2. Dr. Anuradha Mahender ...Petitioners

¶7

Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai, Park Town Chennai- 600 003.

¶8

The Zonal Officer, Zone VII (Ambattur) Corporation of Chennai, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053. ...Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to the impugned order, namely, notice No.7; Revised Assessment, dated 22.12.2017, bearing Notice No.7/1718/47045 and Order No.M/07/081/17-18/3102, issued by the first respondent and to quash the said impugned order.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Deepak Narayanan

¶11

For Respondents : Mrs.Karthika Ashok

¶12

Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mr.B.Deepak Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs.Karthika Ashok, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent/Corporation, dated 22.12.2017.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioners are the owners of the property, in question, which has been assessed by the respondent/Corporation vide three assessment numbers, i) 07-081-02230-000, ii) 07-08102323-000, and iii) 07-081-02117-000. First of the above assessment numbers, is a Hospital in the ground and first floor. The second being residential premises in the second floor and the third being Lab and Medical Shop in the ground floor. The property, in question, was initially under the jurisdiction of Ambatur Municipality, subsequently, incorporated within the jurisdiction of the Greater Chennai Corporation. The respondent/Corporation now seeks to revise the property tax with retrospective effect from II Half year 2011-12. However, notice in Form No.7, dated 22.12.2017, has been issued in respect of one of the assessment numbers, viz., 07-081-02323000, which is a residential premises in the second floor. By the impugned notice, the respondent/Corporation has now re-assessed the entire building, as if, it is within the single jurisdiction. When the three assessment numbers having not merged with single jurisdiction, in the manner known to law, the impugned notice for revision of assessment cannot be sustained.

¶17

The petitioner would submit that in respect of the neighboring building, there are several individual assessments in respect of the same properties, where, there are shops. This is disputed by the petitioner stating that the second floor is only a residential premises. In this regard, the petitioner and the respondent/Corporation produced photographs. However, in my considered view, this dispute need not be gone into at this stage, since the Court is satisfied that the revision of property tax in respect of three individual assessment numbers cannot be done by a single notice in Form No.7. Therefore, on this short ground, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned notice in Form No.7 is set aside and the respondent is given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

+1cc to Mr.B.Deepak Narayanan, Advocate sr.no.31591 +1cc to Mrs.Karthika Ashok, Advocate sr.no.31064

¶24

Writ Petition No.10174 of 2018

¶25

sj(co) nr 07/06/2018

¶26

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

Dr.B.Mahender, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.B.Mahender, 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

M/s.Vikram Trading Company Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

The Superintending Engineer Vs The Director General of

M/s.Velmurugan Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Syed Anvarullah Hussiny Vs Mr. Palanikumar

Sri Ramakrishna Yarn Carriers Vs Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain

M/s. Sai Institutions Vs Senior Interlligence Officer