Kr.Solaimuthu, Vs the Commissioner

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 09.08.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WP No.17190 of 2012
and
M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶6

KR.Solaimuthu,
Prop. Exposkin,
3, Padmanaban Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

The Commissioner,
Pallavaram Municipality,
Chennai – 600 044.

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorari,To call for the records of the respondent impugned
communication bearing proceedings No.Na.Ka. 5319/95/A1 dated
21.6.2012 along with enclosed consequential Property Tax
Balance Sheet bearing Assessment Nos.2333, 2334, 2335 dated
25.6.2012 issued relating to the petitioner property situated
at Door No.158, Thiruneermalai Road, Chromepet Chennai-44 and
quash the same.

¶12

For Respondent: Mr.P.Srinivas
Standing Counsel

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The demand of Property Tax made by the respondent in
proceedings dated 21.06.2012 is under challenge in the present
writ petition.

¶16

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is the absolute
owner of the property bearing Door No.158, Thiruneermalai Road,
Chrompet, measuring to an extent of nearly 21,000 sq.ft. The
property consists of four different sheds and was purchased by
the petitioner in the year 1979 and leather processing units are
functioning during the relevant point of time in the year 1980.
The petitioner was assessed to Property Tax by the respondent
Municipality under the Assessment No.2327 (Old No.6544).

¶17

3. The grievances of the petitioner is that the original
assessment was made for the entire property consisting four
different sheds within the same property, which belongs to the
petitioner. Subsequently, they have divided the assessment and
that was questioned by the petitioner on various grounds.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a
submission that once the property was assessed to Property Tax
on a particular Door Number, different sheds cannot be assessed
separately and the petitioner being a prompt Property Tax payer
cannot be subjected to such harassment on the hands of the
respondent. It is contended that the petitioner made several
objections and the said objections are not yet decided. In an
earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.3951 of
1997, this Court passed a final order directing the petitioner
to submit his objections and directed the authorities to dispose
of the same. Further, the respondents have disposed of the same
by passing the impugned order, without considering the fact that
the property, is to be assessed as a single unit under the
single door number as originally assessed and divided the sheds,
which is improper and not in consonance with the provisions of
the Municipalities Act.

¶19

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

¶20

5. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent municipality made a submission that the
objections raised by the petitioner for single assessment is
processed by the authorities competent and a decision will be
taken as early as possible. However, in respect of the quantum
of assessment already made, the petitioner has to approach the
competent appellate authority for redressal.

¶21

6. This being the factum established, this Court is of
the opinion that the objections already under consideration is
to be processed and a decision is to be taken as early as
possible. In respect of the impugned order passed regarding the
quantum of Property Tax demanded, the petitioner is at liberty
to prefer an appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee, within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. In the event of filing any such appeal, the
Taxation Appeal committee, shall decide the same on merits and
in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity to the writ
petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. After a decision is
taken by the Municipality, if the petitioner is still aggrieved,
then he is at liberty to approach the Taxation Appellate
Committee against the said decision also.

¶22

7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

ars

¶25

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

¶26

To:

¶27

The Commissioner,
Pallavaram Municipality,

¶28

Chennai – 600 044.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.39192

¶30

WP No.17190 of 2012

¶31

SV-I(CO)

¶32

B.VC(27/08/2021)

¶33

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

Kr.Solaimuthu, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kr.Solaimuthu, 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

Dennis Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Rice Lake Weighing Systems Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Sri Abirami Agencies Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Sir. M.Ct. M. Centenary School Society, Vs Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)

M/s.Congnizant Technology solutions India Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income

M/s.Cotton Tex Vs Tax Recovery officer-3