Partly allowed

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

Madras HC25 Jun 2019WP/11473/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a tax demand notice lacking prior notice and opportunity of hearing. Court held the demand violated natural justice and set aside the order, remanding it for inspection and fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand order dated 25.03.2011 set aside; matter remanded for fresh inspection and notice calling for objections.

R.Gurumurthy, OLD.NO.3/2 New Vs the Chairman… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.11473 of 2011

¶5

and M.P.No.2 of 2011

¶6

R.Gurumurthy ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Chairman & Managing Director,

¶9

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

¶10

No.1, Pumping Station Road,

¶11

Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

The Assistant Engineer/JR.Engineer,

¶13

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

¶14

and Sewerage Board,

¶15

Zone 9, Area 140,

¶16

Balaji Nagar, 3^rd Cross Street,

¶17

Eekattuthangal,

¶18

Chennai – 600 097. ...Respondents

¶19

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.09/140/1196/00 dated 25.03.2011 issued by the 2^nd Respondent.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh

¶21

For Respondents: Mr.I.David Singh

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The order under challenge is to a demand of Water and Sewerage Taxes and charges levied from 1^st half of 2001 to 2^nd half of 2010.

¶24

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 the subject premises is only a Godown where neither water connection nor sewerage connection had obtained, 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.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the subject premises has sewerage connection and as such, they are justified in revising the taxes.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

This Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be justified in going into these disputed facts and that it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent here in to conduct proper inspection in the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining the real fact as to whether any water or sewerage connection to the subject premises.

¶31

In the light of the above observation, the impugned demand order dated 25.03.2011 passed in Ref.No.09/140/1196/00 is set aside and consequently, the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for a fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to conduct proper inspection to the subject premises in the presence of petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining as to the existence of water and sewerage connection and thereafter, give notice to the petitioner calling for his objections. On receipt of such objections, if any, the second respondent shall consider the same on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶32

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

¶33

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

The Chairman & Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.
2. 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.
+1cc to Mr.I.David Singh , Advocate, S.R.No.53047
WP.No.11473 of 2011
and
M.P.No.2 of 2011
NMI(CO)
RRS(13/08/2019)

¶38

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