Remanded

Mr. Ravi Patil, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC13 Aug 2019WP/17026/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that revisional assessment of property tax without prior notice and opportunity of hearing violates natural justice. The impugned notice was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after serving notice to interested persons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after due notice.

Mr. Ravi Patil, Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.17026 of 2011 and

¶6

M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

¶7

Ravi Patil ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Commissioner,

¶10

Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Town Hall, Coimbatore – 641 001.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,

¶12

East Zone,

¶13

Coimbatore – 641 005.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore – 641 001. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: 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 2nd respondent in Assessment No.49789 for the period 01.04.2008 signed dated nil and quash the same and direct the respondents to make the revisional assessment in accordance with the rules and recommended guidelines.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan

¶17

This Court, in various decisions have held that the revision of property tax without prior notice, calling for the objections from the assessee and without giving details of the calculation as to how the tax amount came to be revised, is violative of principles of natural justice and had remanded back the matters for reconsideration.

¶18

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

¶19

In the present case, the main ground raised by the petitioner is that the demand has been made without any prior notice to the petitioner. Following the various decisions of this Court, I am also of the view that the matter can be remanded back to the second respondent herein, for a fresh consideration after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶20

In the light of the above observations, the impugned notice is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for a fresh consideration after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections. During such consideration, the second respondent shall serve notice to all persons who are interested in the subject matter. Such an exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
drl/pnn Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
Town Hall, Coimbatore – 641 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
East Zone,
Coimbatore – 641 005.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue)
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
Coimbatore – 641 001.
+1 cc to M/s.B.Nedunchezian, Advocate, S.R.No.69884
+1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.69397

¶22

W.P.No.17026 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

¶23

MR(CO) SSM(17/09/2019)

¶24

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

Mr. Ravi Patil, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ravi Patil, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Gopi Vs the Chief Commissioner of

M/S.Kesaria Marketing Private Vs Income Tax Settlement

M/S.Vishva Chakra Exports (P) Vs Income Tax Settlement

K.Thamizharasan Vs the Tamil Nadu State

M/S.Govardhan Spinners Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Central

K. Narayanan Vs the Commissioner of Central