Allowed

M/S.R.Somanathan and Co., v. the Commissioner

Madras HC28 Aug 2019WP/23183/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that revising property tax without prior notice, call for objections, or providing calculation details violates natural justice. The impugned notice was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with due opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 26.10.2009 set aside; matter remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity.

M/S.R.Somanathan and Co., Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.23183 of 2009 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶7

M/s.R.Somanathan & Co.
Registered Partnership Firm,
Rep. by its Partner,
114, General Patters Road,
Chennai - 600002. ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building, Park Town,
Chennai - 600003.
2. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Revenue Department, Zone 6,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai - 600005. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to
call for the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to the
Final Warrant Notice dated 26.10.2009 made in br.k.m.t.J./rpwg;g [ /2008.09
and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab

¶9

For Respondents: Mr.R.Arun Mozhi, Standing Counsel

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

In the light of the above observations, the impugned notice dated 26.10.2009 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 their objections. During such consideration, the respondent shall serve notice to all persons who are interested in the subject matter. Such an exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stand disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar hvk To 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Park Town, Chennai - 600003.

¶16

The Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Department, Zone 6, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600005. Copy to: i.The Section Officer ER Section,High Court, Madras-104.

¶17

ii.The Section Officer VR section, High court, Madras-104.

¶18

+1cc to Mr.R.Arun Mozhi, Advocate SR.73785 +1cc to Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab, Advocate SR.74722

¶19

W.P.No.23183 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶20

RR(CO) CB(22/10/2019) CB(14/11/2019)

¶21

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

M/S.R.Somanathan and Co., v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.R.Somanathan and Co., v. the 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

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs the Secretary to Government

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs the Secretary to Government

M/S.Ultimate Alloys (Pvt) Ltd. Vs the Member (Central Excise)

M/S. Global Franchise Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

R. Uma Maheswari Vs Andhra Bank, Rep by Its

T.T.Limited Vs Customs & Central Excise