Allowed

S.Gokul, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC14 Jun 2018WP/5651/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, this Court allowed the challenge against a property tax demand notice issued by the Commissioner, Dharapuram Municipality. Finding the notice was issued without proper verification against the petitioner's other paid properties, the Court set aside the notice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice dated 03.01.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

S.Gokul, Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.5651 of 2018

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.6992 and 6993 of 2018

¶8

S.Gokul ... Petitioner vs.

¶9

The Commissioner, Dharapuram Municipality, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. ... Respondent

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records of the respondent in his demand notice dated 03.01.2018 relating to assessment number 154/026/02609 and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudhakar
For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel
******
O R D E R

¶12

Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. With consent on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

The petitioner has challenged the demand notice, dated 03.01.2018, demanding property tax for the period from 2016-17 and 2017-18 in respect of Door No.239-2.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the petitioner is no way connected with the door number mentioned in the notice and he has been paying property tax regularly in respect of Door Nos.238/75/2 and 239/1.

¶15

Thus, it appears that without proper verification, the respondent has issued the impugned demand notice. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is liable to be set aside.

¶16

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

¶17

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned demand notice is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
To
The Commissioner,
Dharapuram Municipality,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.
+1cc to Mr.P.SRINIVAS Advocate, S.R.No. 37771
W.P.No.5651 of 2018
CP(CO)
TR(27/06/2018)

¶19

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

S.Gokul, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gokul, 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. Mas Milk Gova, Vs Deputy Tax Officer

K.Velayutham Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

Kasa Anlagen India Private Vs the State Tax Officer

Tamarabarani Enterprise and Vs Tax Recovery Officer

Indian Overseas Bank Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

M/S Veekesy Plastomers(India) Vs the Commercial Tax Officer