Allowed

Mrs.S.Chanchal Bai, v. Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC7 Feb 2018WP/2320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an arbitrary revision notice of property tax. The Court held that the authority failed to consider objections before revision. It quashed the notice, directed re-inspection, and ordered the retention of payments made under coercion pending a proper final assessment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice of 20.11.2017 set aside; authorities directed to consider objections, re-inspect property, and pass final assessment order on merits; coercive payments retained in suspense.

Mrs.S.Chanchal Bai, Vs Corporation of Chennai — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 07.2.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.2320 of 2018 & WMP.No.2837 of 2018

¶6

Mrs.S.Chanchal Bai ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs 1.The Corporation of Chennai, rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai-3.

¶8

2.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Revenue Department, Zone V, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-1. 3.The Zonal Officer, Zone 5, Corporation of Chennai, No.62, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-21. ...Respondents

¶9

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in G.C.C. R.D.Property Tax Notice for current demand and arrears demand posted on 20.11.2017 issued in lieu of revised assessment notice No.7/15-16/8943 dated 2011.2017 for property tax A/c.No.05/054/ 01364/000, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's objection dated 12.3.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.Karthika Ashok ORDER

¶11

Mrs.Karthika Ashok, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The petitioner is a co-owner of the property comprised in door No.100 (460), Mint Street, Near Ramar Koil, Chennai-79.

¶13

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

¶14

She is aggrieved by the action initiated by the second respondent in revising the property tax with retrospective effect from II/2009-10. On receipt of the notice in Form 7 dated 20.11.2017, the petitioner submitted her objections stating that the increase is arbitrary, that the constructed area mentioned in the notice is incorrect and that the nature of usage is also incorrect.

¶15

Though such an objection has been given as provided in Form 7 notice, the respondent Corporation did not consider the same, but straight away proceeded to increase the property tax. It appears that distraint proceedings are being contemplated to be initiated. At this juncture, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶16

Considering the fact that no proper procedure was followed prior to revision of property tax and without considering the objections dated 12.3.2016, since the second respondent attempted to proceed further with the matter, the action of the second respondent, to that extent, calls for interference.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned notice dated 20.11.2017 for current demand and arrears is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's objections dated 12.3.2016, re-inspect the property in the presence of the petitioner, record proper measurements and consider the type of occupancy and usage. After recording the measurements and getting the inspection report, a copy of the same shall be furnished to the petitioner along with the pre-revision notice. The petitioner shall be granted sufficient time to file their objections to the pre-revision notice and on receipt of the objections, the second respondent is directed to consider the same in a proper manner and pass final assessment order on merits and in accordance with law.

¶18

It appears that the officials of the respondent Corporation exerted pressure on the petitioner and obtained two cheques one for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and another for a sum of Rs.1,50,061/- dated 28.3.2016 and 18.11.2016 respectively without making any proper assessment of the petitioner's building. Therefore, this payment shall be retained in a suspense account and shall abide by the assessment order in terms of the above direction. It is made clear that there shall not be any threat or coercion against the petitioner or the property in question owned by her.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶21

//True copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai-3.

¶27

2.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Revenue Department, Zone V, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-1.

¶28

3.The Zonal Officer, Zone 5, Corporation of Chennai, No.62, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-21.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.Karthika Ashok, Advocate SR.No.9426
+1cc to Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Advocate SR.No.9224

¶30

WP.No.2320 of 2018&
WMP.No.2837of 2018
GN(21/02/2018)

¶31

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

Mrs.S.Chanchal Bai, v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.S.Chanchal Bai, v. Corporation of Chennai

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

Mr.Kavin Kumar Kandaswamy Vs The Chief Commissioner of

M/S. Eastern Chrome Tanning Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Raja Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Ganesa Enterprises, Vs The Commercial Tax

Kiren Saklecha, Vs The Commissioner

Tvl. Andavar Agencies Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)