Disposed

D.Ravichandran, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC13 Feb 2020WP/15315/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order disposed of a writ petition challenging property tax arrears demands. The High Court directed the respondent to inspect the petitioner's property, decide on rent collection, and pass a revised order after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to inspect property, hear petitioner on revision representation, and pass order on tax reassessment.

D.Ravichandran, Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.02.2020

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶4

D. Ravichandran

¶5

... Petitioner -vs-

¶6

The Commissioner, Erode Corporation, Office of the Erode Corporation, Erode 638 001.

¶7

... Respondent

¶8

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 relating to three impugned orders passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/40/12 dated 28.05.2012 and quash the same consequently direct the respondent to re-asses the property tax as per the existing guidelines after hearing and giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : S.Meenakumari For Respondent : Mr. P.Srinivas Standing Counsel

¶10

By the impugned order, the respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax for the period commencing from 1993 to 2012.

¶11

The petitioner was paying the tax as per the assessment of the year 1993. Earlier, the petitioner had been convicted for failing to deposit the tax pursuant to order in STC Nos.4138 and 4139 of 1994. Prior to filing of the above STC Nos.4138 and 4139 of 1994, the petitioner had also given representation to the respondent to pass orders for revision of the assessment order. However, while the petition was pending, the petitioner was arrested. Which was challenged. The petitioner's petition was dismissed. The petitioner therefore filed Crl.A.Nos.107 and 108 of 1995 before the II https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Additional District Judge, Erode. By two separate orders dated

¶12

16.06.1998, the court held that the petitioner cannot be arrested for not paying the tax as the offence relates to financial implications.

¶13

In the light of the fact, that the petitioner has given representation for revision of the assessment. The relevant portion of the order of both the cases reads as under:

¶14

“15. vjphp jug;gpy; mt;thW thptpjpg;ig Fiwf;ff; nfhhp kD bfhLj;j gpwF me;j kDtpy;; chpa cj;jut[fis gpwg;gpf;fhky; thp ghf;fp nfl;L Fw;wtpay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; eltof;if vLj;jJ Vw;gjw;fpy;iy vd;Wk;. thp tpjpg;ig Fiwf;ff; nfhhp jhf;fy; bra;j kD epYitapy; ,Ug;gjhy;. Vjphp thp bfhLf;fhky; fhj;jpUe;jhh; vd;W TWtjpy; bghUs; cs;sJ vd;nw fUjp Kot[ bra;fpnwd;/ ,e;j tptu';fis fPHik ePjpkd;wk; Ma;t[ bra;ahky; thpia brYj;j ntz;Lk; vd;W TwpapUg;gJ Vw;g[ilajy;y vd;W fUjp Kot[ bra;J me;j tifapy; Fw;wtpay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; eltof;if vLg;gjw;F thjpahd efuhl;rpf;F chpikapy;;iy vd;W Kot[ bra;fpnwd;/ 16/ Kotpy; TLjy; Mtdkhd v/rh/M 2d; kPJ thjp efuhl;rp cj;jputpLk; nghJk; vjphpahdth; mij vjph;j;J chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;J mtUila chpikia epiyehl;of; bfhs;s chpika[s;sJ vd;Wk;. Mfnt thjpahdth; me;j kDtpy; ,Wjp cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. mt;thW ,Jtiu cj;jput[ gpwg;gpj;J ,Ue;jhYk;. ,;e;j jPh;g;g[f;F gpwfhtJ ,Wjp cj;jput[ gpwg;gpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. mjpy; jug;gpdh;fs; mtuth;fs; chpikia epiyehl;of; bfhs;syhk; vd;Wk;. me;j tifapy; eltof;if epYitapy; ,Uf;Fk; fhyj;ij gpd;dpl;L vjphpahdth; efuhl;rp brhj;J thp tpjpg;g[ jhth fhyj;jpw;F fhyhtjp Mfptpl;ld vd;w Kiwapy; vjph;thjk; vLf;f mUfijaw;wth; vd;Wk; nkYk; Kiwg;go eltof;if epYitapy; ,Uf;Fk; fhyj;jpw;Fk; vjphpahdth; thpia brYj;jf; flikg;gl;lth; vd;Wk; Kot[ bra;J me;j tifapy; ,e;j Fw;wtpay; nky;KiwaPL mDkjpf;fg;gl;L fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jPh;g;g[ jz;lida[k;. jz;lidj; jPh;g;g[k; ePf;fut[ bra;ag;gLfpwJ/nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;- vjphp fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mguhjkhf vJt[k; brYj;jpapUe;jhy; ,ij mtUf;F jpUg;gpf; bfhLf;f cj;jputpLfpnwd;/ “

¶15

It is the contention of the petitioner that the property is in a dilapidated condition and no rent has been requested by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner was in fact receiving rent and was collecting an amount of Rs.4,50,000/from the tenant for building and vacant site.

¶16

Since there is a possibility of keeping the goods and it is stated that the petitioner purchased a vacant land and no rent has been collected by the petitioner, I direct the officer of the respondent to inspect the property within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and dispose of the representation of the petitioner for revision of the tax to be paid by the petitioner, thereafter suitable order shall be passed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner claims that it is an alternate property and he has no objection in case of lock and seal of the said property, any person/officers of the respondent is entitled to seal the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property after a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of

¶17

a copy of this order. After coming to the conclusion whether the property has been rented or not or otherwise, the respondent is directed to pass an order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶20

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssi
To
The Commissioner, Erode Corporation,
Office of the Erode Corporation,
Erode 638 001.
+1cc to Mr.D.Balachandran, Advocate SR.No. 11681
+1cc to Mr. P.Srinivas, Advocate SR.No. 12923
W.P. No. 15315 of 2012
A.SK(20/08/2020)

¶21

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

D.Ravichandran, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ravichandran, 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

M/S.Eximcorp India Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Deputy Director

M/S.Sas Engineering (P) Ltd., Vs the Special Committee

M/S.Diamond Engineering Vs the Commissioner of

Bright N Power Marketing P Ltd. Vs The Deputy commercial Tax

The Union of India Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Pepsico India Holdings Vs The Deputy Commissioner