This court addressed a writ petition challenging an enhancement of property tax. The court directed the Commissioner as Executive Authority to dispose of the pending revision per Taxation Rules Rule 12 within 12 weeks and suspended coercive action until disposal.
No coercive action or distraint until disposal of revision; existing tax to be paid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :08.08.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.No.23425 of 2019
&
W.M.P.Nos.23200 & 23202 of 2019
A.Anandhakumar ...Petitioner
vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA IV) Department, Chepauk
Chennai – 600 005
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3.The Commissioner Cum Executive Authority Mettupalayam Municipality
Housing Unit, Mettupalayam – 641 301 ..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 pertaining to the Special Notice dated 25.02.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.T.Rajasuriya for Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Pratap Singh Government Advocate for R1&R2
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Standing counsel for R3
Mr.J.T.Rajasuriya, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.R.P.Pratap Singh, learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Standing counsel on behalf of third respondent, Mettupalayam Municipality are before this Court.
'[9. When assessment books have been prepared for the first time and whenever a general revision of such books has been completed, the [executive authority] shall give public notice stating that revision petitions will be considered if they reach the municipal office within a period of sixty days from the date of such notice in the case of the Government, a railway administration or a company, and of thirty days from the said date in other cases. The notice shall be affixed to the notice board of the municipal office and on the same day be published in the municipality by beat of drum]
[Provided that in every case where there is an enhancement in the assessment, the executive authority shall also cause intimation thereof to be given by a special notice to be served on the owner or occupier of the property concerned:
Provided further that, in every case where a special notice is required to be served on the owner or occupier under the first proviso, the period of sixty days and thirty days referred to in this rule shall be calculated from the date of service of such special notice.]'
[10. In every case in which between one general revision and another, the [executive authority] assesses any property for the first time or increases the assessment on any property otherwise than in consequence of a general enhancement of the rate at which the property tax is leviable, the [executive authority] shall intimate by a special notice to the
owner or occupier of such property that a petition for revising the assessment will be considered if it reaches the municipal office within sixty days from the date of service of such notice in the case of the Government, a railway administration or a company, and within thirty days from the said date in other cases.] '
'[(8-C) 'Executive Authority' means an officer of the State Government, or of the local authority (not being the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or a Member of the Council) as may be specified by the State Government]'
objections to be made individually by the writ petitioner treating the same as revision, qua impugned notice.
'[12 No petition under rule 9, 10, or 11 shall be disposed of unless the petitioner has been given a reasonable opportunity to appear either in person or by authorised agent and to represent his case.]'
a) Writ petitioner shall send individual representation/revision qua impugned order to the Commissioner of Mettupalayam Municipality within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
b) Third respondent before this Court namely Commissioner, Mettupalayam Municipality, who is Executive Authority within the meaning of Section 2(8-C) of District Municipalities Act, shall dispose of writ petitioner's representation/revision in response to impugned notice being Special Notice dated 25.02.2019 for writ petitioner's property at 145A, Kovai Main Road and the relevant Assessment number is 074/031/00381.
c) Disposal of revision by 3rd respondent shall be in accordance with the procedure adumbrated in Rule 12 of the Taxation Rules.
d) Disposal of the revision on its own merits in
accordance with law by the 3rd respondent shall be done as expeditiously as possible and in any event within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of individual representation / revision from the writ petitioner.
e) There shall be no coercive action against the writ petitioner or distraint proceedings against the writ petitioner's property until disposal of revision, subject to the condition that the writ petitioner shall continue to pay half yearly property tax for said property at the existing rate of Rs.11,048/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Forty Eight only). Though obvious, it is made clear that if the writ petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the revision, it is open to the writ petitioner to assail the same in a manner known to law
and if that scenario unfurls, this order will not impede such a legal process.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the property tax assessment pending revision can be enhanced immediately.
Whether the Executive Authority must dispose of the revision following Rule 12 procedures.
Whether coercive action or distraint is permissible pending the decision on the revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjai Gupta Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of ChennaiReferred¶48
Sanjai Gupta Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai reported in 2009 (2) CTC 465
5 provisions across 3 enactments
A. Anandhakumar
Government of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Commissioner Cum Executive Authority Mettupalayam Municipality
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
