Partly allowed

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Feb 2020WP(MD)/362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Second Amendment) Act 2018 and the property tax increase as per a Division Bench judgment. However, the Court set aside the demand notice levying the tax retrospectively from 01.10.2017 based on a subsequent government circular. The writ petition was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice levying property tax retrospectively from 01.10.2017 is set aside.

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.362 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶4

W.P.[MD]No.362 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.306 and 307 of 2019

¶5

The Correspondent, St.Joachim's Matriculation School, 21, Ambai Road, Karunkulam, Tirunelveli – 627 356. : Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St, George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶7

2.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Melapalayam Zone, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

4.The Deputy Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation, Melapalayam Zone, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuing a Writ of Declaration to declare the impugned Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Second Amendment) Act 2018 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette vide Extraordinary Notification on 25.01.2018 under Section 2 Part V and the consequential Demand Notices issued by the 4^th Respondent Assistant Revenue Officer, demanding property tax in respect of petitioner's school-building in Door No.1, St.Joachim's Metric Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli District vide proceedings Assessment No.146/034/03019, dated 22.08.2018 demanding payment of property tax in respect of building in Door No.1 to a tune of Rs.1,49,846/- (half https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

1/3

¶12

W.P.[MD]No.362 of 2019

¶13

year tax) and the consequential Demand Notice, dated 04.12.2018 (Received on 05.12.2018) and all further proceedings towards the demand and collection of property tax in relation to the petitioner school as unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.J.Shabu Jose for M/s.Isaac Chambers For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J ]

¶17

This Writ Petition seeks to challenge the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 and the consequential demand notices, enhancing the property tax, issued by the Tirunelveli Municipality.

¶18

2.A similar challenge was raised in a batch of Writ Petitions questioning the competence of the Government to increase Property Tax and the manner in which the Property Tax has been increased. A Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.18008 of 2018, etc. batch [Monfort Academy Matriculation Higher Secondary School Vs. the Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai, and others], decided on 13.09.2019, has upheld the validity of the amendment and consequential increase in the property tax.

¶19

Other than the competence and the increase in the property tax, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the property tax has been levied retrospectively from 01.10.2017. It has now been clarified in a circular, dated 25.05.2018, in Roc.No.7234/2014/R1 by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai. In Clause 6 of the said circular, it is clarified as under:

¶20

“6. With respect to Municipalities, either Building plan approval or Un-Authorised Construction Notice No. to be made mandatory for all new assessments from 01.04.2018”.

¶21

In view of the said clarification, this Court need not adjudicate on the retrospective application of the increase in property tax. Hence, the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent demanding property tax retrospectively from 01.10.2017 is set aside.

¶22

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, partly allowed in terms of the judgment of Division Bench, dated 13.09.2019. However, there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2/3

¶24

W.P.[MD]No.362 of 2019

¶25

is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶29

gcg/cmr To 1.The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St,George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Melapalayam Zone, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Deputy Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation, Melapalayam Zone, Tirunelveli District. +1 CC to Mr.AAYIRAM.K.SELVAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-8886[F] dated 27/02/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.ISAAC CHAMBERS, Advocate (SR-8484[F] dated 26/02/2020 ) +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-8406[F] dated 26/02/2020 )

¶30

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD]No.362 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.306 and 307 of 2019 25.02.2020

¶31

MK (06.03.2020) 3P 8C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Suresh, Vs the Management

M/S Thangamayil Jewellery Ltd, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Geethakrishna Spinning Mills Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mallika, W/O. Marimuthu, Vs Union of India, Reptd by Its

M.Babu Selvam, S/O.S.Manickam, Vs State of Tamilnadu

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu