Disposed

V.Muthukrishnan, v. the Director

Madras HC10 Jun 2019WP/1210/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside a retrospective demand for vacant land tax imposed without prior notice. It held that such action violated principles of natural justice. The court granted liberty to issue a fresh notice for objections within three months before reassessment.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order set aside; liberty granted to respondents to issue fresh notice for objections within three months.

V.Muthukrishnan, Vs the Director — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.1210 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶6

V.Muthukrishnan ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director,
Municipal Administration & Water
Supply Department,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
2. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Town Hall, Coimbatore - 1.
3. The Asst. Commissioner (Central Zone),
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore - 1.
4. Asst. Commissioner (Revenue),
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore - 1. ...Respondents

¶7

PRAYER:

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 12.12.2011 in Vacant land tax Assessment No.355060 for the property bearing No.11/2 Vedambal Nagar and quash the same and direct the respondent to assess the property tax for the period from 19881989 (I) to 2003-2004 (I) and from 2008-2009 (I) to 2011-2012 (I).

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, GA for R1 Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad for R2 to R4

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The short question that arises in the present writ petition is as to whether the respondents are justified in demanding vacant land tax retrospectively from the second half of the year 1998 to 2007-2008. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had purchased the property in the year 1996. The respondents had not raised any demand with the petitioner's vendor with regard to payment of vacant land tax.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision under the Corporation Act for retrospective demand of vacant land tax from the year 1998 onwards and as such, the demand is liable to be set aside.

¶15

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, by relying on the counter filed, had opposed such a submission and stated that, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the demand made. Even otherwise, since the petitioner had completed the construction only in the year 2008, the Corporation had reckoned the capital value of the property from the date of purchase. According to the learned Standing Counsel, under Section 121 of the Corporation Act, the respondents are competent to levy property tax on the building as well as the vacant land tax.

¶16

I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

¶17

It is not in dispute that prior to the retrospective levy of vacant land tax, the petitioner was not put on prior notice with regard to the mode in which the vacant land tax as well as property tax was levied. Even otherwise, when the respondents had chosen to retrospectively demand the vacant land tax as well as the property tax from the year 1998 onwards, there was a duty cast on them to call for objections from the petitioner prior to such a retrospective demand. In the absence of any such prior notice, the retrospective demand itself would be in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the demand is liable to be set aside on this sole ground. Nevertheless, if the respondents are of the view that the petitioner is liable to pay any of these taxes from the year 1998 onwards, such an exercise could be done, after calling for the objections from the petitioner and on consideration of the same.

¶18

In the light of the above observations, the impugned assessment order dated 12.12.2011, insofar as it relates to the petitioner's property in No.11/2, Vedambal Nagar, is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are granted liberty to issue a

¶19

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

¶20

fresh notice, calling for the petitioner's objections with regard to any retrospective demand of either the land tax or the property tax. On receipt of such a notice, the petitioner will be at liberty to put forth his objections. The respondents shall, thereafter consider these objections on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, atleast within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
hvk
To
1. The Director,
Municipal Administration & Water
Supply Department,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
2. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Town Hall, Coimbatore - 1.
3. The Asst. Commissioner (Central Zone),
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore - 1.
4. Asst. Commissioner (Revenue),
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore – 1.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad, Advocate, S.R.No.46015 +1cc to Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, Advocate, S.R.No.46046 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.46899

¶24

W.P.No.1210 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶25

LN(CO) CS/27/06/2019

¶26

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

V.Muthukrishnan, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Muthukrishnan, v. the Director

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

The Village Panchayat Rep. Vs the Director of Matriculation

Commissioner of Central Vs the Chairman

C.David Climant Vs Magnum Foundation(P) Ltd.

M/S.S.K.M. Egg Products Vs Assistant Commissioner of

M/S.Vivin Vaibava Trading P. Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Madras High Court Advocates Vs Union of India