Disposed

M/S.C.B.M. Sakunthala Memorial v. the Special Commissioner &

Madras HC11 Jan 2019WP/19099/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that complex factual disputes regarding land usage and tax assessment are not suitable for writ proceedings. Instead, the Assistant Commissioner was directed to conduct a fresh inspection of the premises and revise the assessment within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Assistant Commissioner to conduct fresh inspection and revise assessment within four months.

M/S.C.B.M. Sakunthala Memorial Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :11.01.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.19099 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2006

¶2

M/s.C.B.M.Sakunthala Memorial Trust rep.by its Managing Trustee Mr.C.M.Ramaraj

¶3

..Petitioner

¶4

vs
1.The Special Commissioner &
Commissioner Land Reforms
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax,
Coimbatore.
3.The Special Tahsildhar
Urban Land Tax
Coimbatore.

¶5

..Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents, especially the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 3.5.2004, vide Assessment order in C.No.646/SKMR/1391 as confirmed by the order of the 1^st respondent dated 2/5/2006 in ref.Rc.No.9671/2004/(D2), in respect of lands in Survey Nos.128/2A, 128/2B, 128/2C, 151/2, 458/2 of Sundakamuthu Village, Coimbatore Taluk and quash the same and further direct the respondents to extent the benefit of Section 29(h) of Act 20/66 in respect of the lands referred to above.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramesh For Respondents : M/s.R.Janaki, Additional Government Pleader

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The order impugned dated 02.05.2006 states that the income and expenditure statement filed for the year ended 31.03.2001, 31.03.2002 shows that there is an excess of income over expenditure, which amounts to Rs.156,675.99 and Rs.107,077.78

¶10

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

¶11

respectively, whereas the tax amount is Rs.6434/- per fasli and there is no hardship to pay the tax. As per the impugned order, the lease for which tax was levied have not been used for educational purposes.

¶12

2.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the findings arrived in this regard is erroneous and contrary to the facts and circumstances. This Court is of an opinion that such disputed and complex facts and circumstances can never be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such complex facts are to be adjudicated by producing documents and by adducing evidences. Such an exercise is to be done only by the authorities competent and not by this Court in a writ proceedings.

¶13

3.However, the Assistant Commissioner namely Mr.J.Balasubramaniam, Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore, who is present before this Court, made a submission that during the relevant point of time, the land was not in full usage and accordingly, the assessment of tax was issued. However, a fresh inspection is to be conducted in respect of the usage of the land by the petitioners and accordingly, a tax can be revised suitably in accordance with the procedures as contemplated under law.

¶14

4.Taking note of the fact that the submission made by the Assistant Commissioner concerned, this Court is of an opinion that the facts now set out, which relates to the year 2006, need not be gone into, now after a lapse of 12 years. However, the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore is directed to conduct a fresh inspection in respect of the premises belongs to the writ petitioner and accordingly, make an assessment and pass orders suitably within a period of four Months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to co-operate for the inspection and submit their objection / explanations if any, along with the documents.

¶15

5.With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

1.The Special Commissioner &
Commissioner Land Reforms
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax,
Coimbatore.
3.The Special Tahsildhar
Urban Land Tax
Coimbatore.
+1cc to Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.3144
W.P.No.19099 of 2006
SSV(CO)
GSP(11/02/2019)

¶22

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

M/S.C.B.M. Sakunthala Memorial v. the Special Commissioner &

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.C.B.M. Sakunthala Memorial v. the Special Commissioner &

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

K.Srinivasan, Vs the Director, National Institu

M/S.Kumar Mahendra Exim Vs the Deputy Comemrcial Tax

Harshad Doshi Vs the Authorised Officer

Ishwarchand E. Tater, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

A.J.S.Paul (Deceased) Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Dunlop India Ltd. Vs Union of India