Allowed

G. Manoharan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC12 Jun 2018WP/17919/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition challenging a municipal property tax demand. The Court granted a writ of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the demand due to non-issuance of a show cause notice, instructing the respondents to issue a fresh notice and give a chance to be heard.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand set aside; liberty to issue a fresh notice within fifteen days; payment made under interim order addressed by future orders after notice.

G. Manoharan Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.17919 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

Mr.G.Manoharan ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-
1.The Commissioner,
Vellore Municipal Corporation,
Vellore.
2.The Revenue Inspector,
Vellore Municipal Corporation,
Vellore.
3.The Revenue Assistant,
Vellore Municipal Corporation,
Vellore. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records leading to issue of impugned order No.94031/WD/48 dated 04.07.2011 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to follow the Principal District Munsif Court decree made in O.S.No.344/1994 dated 31.08.1998 and issue fresh notice and give opportunity in accordance with law before passing any order.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Thilagaraj
For Respondents : No Appearance
O R D E R

¶10

Heard Mr.C.Thilagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent / Municipality.

¶11

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging a demand issued by the respondent / Municipality demanding arrears of property tax.

¶12

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

¶13

First among the several contentions raised before this Court is on the ground that the respondent has not issued any show cause notice and without giving an opportunity, the impugned demand has been raised. Though the interim order was granted on condition, which was complied with, and the writ petition is pending since 2011, the respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the stand taken by the petitioner.

¶14

In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned demand is set aside giving liberty to the respondent / Municipality to issue a fresh notice within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The payment already made by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court shall be abide by the orders to be passed after issuing the show cause notice. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
To
1.The Commissioner,
Vellore Municipal Corporation,
Vellore.
2.The Revenue Inspector,
Vellore Municipal Corporation,
Vellore.
3.The Revenue Assistant,
Vellore Municipal Corporation,
Vellore.
+1cc to Mrs.C.Thilagaraj, Advocate Sr.36925
W.P.No.17919 of 2011
ev[co]
srg 26/06/2018

¶16

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

G. Manoharan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Manoharan 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/s.Phenix Builiding Solutions Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

M/s.Nagavalli Traders, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

Tvl.K.N.R.Constructions Ltd., Vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep

S.Kamal Vs S.Ramesh Kumar

M/S.Stanes Motors(South India) Vs Sri.S.Mahesh

Tvl.Rajeshwar Metals Vs The Commercial Tax Officer