Remanded

J. Roop Kumar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 May 2020WP(MD)/6070/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a property tax demand notice, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the assessment order. The Court held that the authority failed to examine the petitioner's representations. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh assessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

Petition set aside; matter remanded to Assistant Commissioner to examine representations, issue notice, hear petitioner on property use, and complete assessment by 31.07.2020.

J. Roop Kumar Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.05.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD).No.5259 of 2020

J.Roop Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai-625 002.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Zone 2),

¶12

Madurai City Municipal Corporation,

¶13

Industrial Estate, K.Pudur,

¶14

Madurai-625 007.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining the impugned property tax demand notice dated 01.03.2019 issued by the respondents in respect of Assessment No.10637, for the property in Plot.No.131, East Fifth Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai and quash the same and consequentially to assess the property tax afresh with effect from 01.04.2015 till 30.09.2017 at commercial rate and to assess the property tax with effect from 01.10.2017 at residential rate and to make a demand after adjusting the tax already paid by the petitioner.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan for MrT.R.Jeyapalam For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Standing Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition was filed on 16.03.2020 and has been posted for admission before this Court today (04.05.2020). The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

¶23

I had the benefit of hearing Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, namely, the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation and the Assistant Commissioner (Zone 2), Madurai City Municipal Corporation.

¶24

The petitioner in his affidavit had stated that the property bearing plot No.131, East Fifth Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai Town, originally belonged to his mother, and later devolved to the petitioner. The assessment was also transferred in his name in the revenue records. He claims to have paid the property tax, water tax, drainage maintenance charges up to second half year of 20172018. The petitioner was employed in Alagappa University and owing to that, had let out the property on rent and the tenant had put the property to commercial use. This was during the period 2015–2017. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that originally the property was assessed to pay at around Rs.3,000/- per half year. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed and in the same time, the rental value per square feet at Rs.9/- had been fixed and a demand has been raised for a sum of Rs.47,580/- which has been claimed to be the property tax assessed per half year. The learned counsel claims that this is highly un-reasonable and also complains that necessary opportunity had not been granted to him prior to re-assessment of the property tax.

¶25

Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel stated on instructions, that even as on date, the petitioner has paid the electricity charges only at commercial rate. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶26

This Court while examining the issue in a writ jurisdiction cannot determine the facts. It is also not brought to the notice of this Court that there is an appeal remedy before the Appellate Authority. However, the petitioner appears to have given a representation on 12.12.2018 and a further representation on 21.02.2020, seeking revision of the property tax. The respondents have not passed any order on those representations. It would only be appropriate that the respondents examine the representations, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his version and examine the same and thereafter assess the property tax.

¶27

In view of these facts, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is set aside. However, the matter is remanded back to the second respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner (Zone 2), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, to examine the representations of the petitioner dated 12.12.2018 and 21.02.2020 and also issue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice to the petitioner and hear the petitioner regarding the fact

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020

¶30

of letting out the property for commercial purpose between 2015-2017 and later enjoying the property as a residential unit from the year 2017 and thereafter, assess the property for tax. The entire exercise by the second respondent should be completed on or before 31.07.2020.

¶31

With these observations, the Writ Petition itself stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

Assistant Registrar (crl.side)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶35

Tsg TO

¶36

1.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai-625 002.

¶37

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Zone 2), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai-625 007.

¶38

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6070 of 2020 Dated:04.05.2020

¶39

MK (15.05.2020) 3P 3C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

J. Roop Kumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Roop Kumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Premkumar Vs the Inspector General of Police

Dr.v.Deepika Lincy, Vs The Secretary

M. Selvaraj Vs the District Collector

Pappa Vs the Dist. Collector

Rani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

I.Ganapathy Vs The Commissioner of Municipal Administration