Disposed

Mrs.Hemavathi @ Hema Kanniappan, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC1 Oct 2019WP/28766/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging property tax enhancement. The petitioner alleged procedural lapses and non-consideration of a representation. The Court directed the Commissioner to consider the representation, pass orders on merits with an opportunity of hearing, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, pass orders on merits after an opportunity of hearing, within four weeks.

Mrs.Hemavathi @ Hema Kanniappan, Vs The Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.28766 of 2019

¶6

and WMP.No.28510 of 2019

¶7

Mrs.Hemavathi @ Hema Kanniappan
W/o.V.Kanniappan ...Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner
Chennai City Municipal Corporation
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003.
2.The Revenue Officer (Property Tax)
Chennai City Municipal Corporation
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003.
3.The Assistant Revenue Officer
Zone 6, Anderson Road,
Chine Chembarambakkam
Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023. ...Respondents

¶8

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 3rd respondent in respect of Bill No.08345, Old Bill No.2930, Assessment No.0606408345 for the premises bearing New No.13, Old No.6, Plot No.7, Shanthi Nagar Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099 as per 29, Schedule IV Chennai City Municipal Act, 4 of 1990 and quash the same as illegal, unlawful besides ultra vires and consequently, forbearing the respondents from in any manner proceed with sending property demand notice to the petitioner without complying with the procedure contemplated under Schedule IV of the Chennai City Municipal Act 4 of 1990.

¶9

Page No. 1/3

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mrs.C.A.Sharmila For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar for Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan standing counsel

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved against the enhancement of the property tax. According to the petitioner, the enhancement was made without following the due procedure. Ventilating such grievance, the petitioner has already made a representation on 29.03.2019 to the first respondent.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the said representation has not been considered by the respondents so far.

¶16

Therefore, it is for the first respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, as this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

¶17

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the first respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

¶19

Page No. 2/3

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Commissioner
Chennai City Municipal Corporation
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003.
2.The Revenue Officer (Property Tax)
Chennai City Municipal Corporation
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003.
3.The Assistant Revenue Officer
Zone 6, Anderson Road,
Chine Chembarambakkam
Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.
+1 cc to Mr.C.A.Sharmila Advocate sr84351
+1 cc to Mr.T.C.Gopala Krishnan advocate sr84306
W.P.No.28766 of 2019
pp(co)
aa04/11/2019

¶23

Page No. 3/3

¶24

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

Mrs.Hemavathi @ Hema Kanniappan, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Hemavathi @ Hema Kanniappan, 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

Tvl.Abirami Engienering Company, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

S.Ravichandran Vs The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5A)

M/s.J.J.Graphics, Vs The Commissioner of Customs

M/s.Ge T and D India Ltd. Vs Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

Ge T and D India Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of GST and

M/S.Pearl Silicon Products Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer