Remanded

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New v. the Chairman and Managing

Madras HC25 Jun 2019WP/11472/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a demand notice for water and sewerage taxes issued retrospectively without a prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The court quashed the order for violating the principles of natural justice and remanded the matter to the authority to issue a proper notice and reassess after hearing objections.

What did the court decide?

Demand order dated 07.12.2010 set aside; matter remanded to 2nd Respondent to issue proper notice calling for objections and reassess.

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New Vs the Chairman and… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 25.06.2019

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶4

WP.No.11472 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶5

R.Gurumurthy ... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

The Chairman & Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

¶8

No.1, Pumping Station Road,

¶9

Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.

¶10

The Assistant Engineer/JR.Engineer,

¶11

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

¶12

and Sewerage Board,

¶13

Zone 9, Area 140,

¶14

Balaji Nagar, 3^rd Cross Street,

¶15

Eekattuthangal,

¶16

Chennai – 600 097. ...Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the demand notice in Ref.No.09/140/1197/00 dated 07.12.2010 issued by the 2^nd Respondent.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh

¶19

For Respondents: Mr.I.David Singh

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The order under challenge is to a demand of Water and Sewerage Taxes and charges levied from 2^nd half of 2006 to 2^nd half of 2010.

¶22

Though the petitioner has raised several grounds challenging the authority for levy of demand, one of the main grounds raised by the petitioner is that though he has been paying necessary dues to the respondents herein, the demand notice has been given without any prior notice calling for his objections nor was any detailed calculation as to how taxes and charges came to be revised retrospectively.

¶23

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

¶24

On perusal of the impugned demand order, it is seen that there is no reference to any prior notice issued to the petitioner while retrospectively revising the taxes and charges. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents also does not reveal that the petitioner has given opportunity to put forth his objections.

¶25

While that being so, the main ground raised by the petitioner seems to be acceptable and as such, demand made would be in violation of principle of natural justice.

¶26

This Court in various decisions has held while retrospective revision is done and demand made accordingly, the consumer is entitled to be heard before such revision is made and in the absence of the same, demand itself would be illegal.

¶27

Nevertheless, if the first respondent is granted liberty to re-assess such revision, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections, the interest of the department would be secured and thereby, the ends of justice would be made.

¶28

In the light of the above observations, the demand order dated 07.12.2010 in Ref.No.09/140/1197/00 issued by the 2^nd Respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent herein who shall give a proper notice to the petitioner herein calling for his objections with regard to the proposed revision and on receipt of such objections, if any, the second respondent shall consider the same after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar nl

¶33

¶34

The Chairman & Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

¶35

No.1, Pumping Station Road,

¶36

Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.

¶37

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

¶38

The Assistant Engineer/JR.Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Zone 9, Area 140, Balaji Nagar, 3^rd Cross Street, Eekattuthangal, Chennai – 600 097.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.52826 +1cc to Mr.I.David Singh, Advocate, S.R.No.53046

¶40

WP.No.11472 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶41

NMI(CO)

¶42

RRS(13/08/2019)

¶43

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

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New v. the Chairman and Managing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New v. the Chairman and Managing

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.Snv Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Kongu Lodge Vs the Commissioner of Probition

M/S Cosmopolitan Club, Vs the Superintendent of Central

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New Vs the Chairman and Managing

The Master Club, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Kicm (Madras) Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of