Partly allowed

S.S.Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Revenue Officer

Madras HC26 Aug 2021WP/17801/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order revising property tax. It directed the respondent corporation to provide a working sheet detailing the assessment parameters and allow the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before finalizing the revised assessment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; direction to respondent to provide breakdown of assessment and grant opportunity of hearing before finalizing revised tax.

S.S.Radhakrishnan Vs The Assistant Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 26.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.NO.17801 OF 2021
&
W.M.P.NO.18986 OF 2021

¶6

Shri.S.S.Radhakrishnan

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Revenue Officer
Zone XIII (Adyar)
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.115, Muthulakshmi Salai
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling
for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated June 23,
2021 in Ma.Aa.13.Va.Thu,Na.Ka.No.R2/1268/2021 passed by the
Respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq
 for Mr.G.Derrick Sam

¶12

For Respondent : Ms.S.Vaitheeswari
 Standing counsel
 for Chennai Corporation

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Mr.G.Derric Sam, counsel on record for writ petitioner and
Ms.S.Vaitheeswari, learned Standing Counsel for Chennai
corporation (on behalf of lone respondent) are before this
Virtual Court, with the consent of both the learned counsel,
main writ petition is taken up as the entire matter turns on a
very short point.

¶16

2. The subject matter of captioned writ petition pertains
to assessment of property tax for a 'property at No.17(9),
Customs Colony, 1st Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600
020' (hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience).

¶17

3. This Court is informed that writ petitioner is the
owner of said property. This Court is informed that the
superstructure qua said property consists of two floors, namely
ground floor and first floor. There is also no disputation or
disagreement qua the fact that said property had already been
assessed to property tax and writ petitioner has been paying the
property tax promptly at the rate of Rs.3,099/- upto I/98-99 and
at the rate of Rs.4,456/- from II/98-99. To be noted, 'I'
denotes first half year and 'II' denotes second half year.
First half year in property tax parlance is from 1st of April to
30th September of a year in the English Calendar and the second
half year is from 1st October of one English Calendar year to 31st
March of succeeding English Calendar year.

¶18

4. When things stood as above, the writ petitioner sent a
communication dated 18.08.2018 to the respondent i.e., Chennai
Corporation and a scanned reproduction of this communication is
as follows:

¶19

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

¶20

5. The above communication speaks for itself. A perusal
of the communication brings to light that the writ petitioner
voluntarily i.e., by his own volition brought to the notice of
Chennai Corporation that a small portion of the aforementioned
superstructure qua said property had been leased out to a
Company and that the same is being used for commercial purpose.
Learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, submits
that 473.13 sq.ft in the ground floor is being used for
commercial purpose and from and out of 473.13 sq.ft, 223.5 sq.ft
has been leased out. The above letter is not happily worded and
this is how the above said letter should be understood is

¶21

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

¶22

learned counsel's say. To be noted, the quantum of property tax
varies depending on the usage i.e., commercial or residential.

¶23

6. In response to the above said voluntary communication

¶24

from the writ petitioner, the officials of Chennai Corporation have gone over to the said property, made a field assessment (fs Ma;t[) and have sent a communication to the writ petitioner and a scanned reproduction of the same together with the annexures is as follows:

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner
notwithstanding very many grounds and averments in writ
affidavit makes two submissions and they are as follows:

¶32

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

¶33

a) No opportunity has been given to the writ
petitioner before making the revised assessment enhancing
the tax with effect from I/20-21 from Rs.4,456/- to
Rs.15,515/- per half year (nearly four fold increase);

¶34

b) From the annexures to the aforementioned
'23.06.2021 communication Ma.Aa.13.Va.Thu,Na.Ka.No. R2/
1268/2021' (hereinafter 'impugned communication' for the
sake of convenience and clarity), it comes to light that
Chennai Corporation has proceeded on the basis that the
entire ground floor of the superstructure is being used
for non-residential purpose (commercial) whereas it is
factually incorrect as a large portion of the same was
and continues to be used as Advocate's office.
Furthering his submissions in this direction, learned
counsel draws the attention of this Court to an order
dated 05.09.2003 passed by the Taxation Appeals Tribunal
made in T.A.T.No.513/2002 with regard to the same
property i.e., said property wherein the Tribunal has
held that Advocate office should be treated as owner
residence. The order reads as follows:

¶35

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

¶36

8. In response to the above, learned Standing Counsel for
Chennai Corporation submits that an inspection was made and
revised assessment enhancing property tax has been arrived at
based on the inspection report. However, the break up has not
been made available.

¶37

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

¶38

9. Owing to the voluntary disclosure by the writ
petitioner it is made clear that this case will not serve as a
precedent. This Court finds it appropriate to direct Chennai
corporation to give break up to the writ petitioner and give an
opportunity to the writ petitioner or his duly authorized
representative and then redo the revision/enhancement of
property tax assessment and communicate the same to the writ
petitioner. Before the operative portion of the order is set
out, this Court deems it appropriate to mention that it has
noticed that the method of assessment of property tax has been
set out in the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and
the parameters that are applied to other properties in the City
of Chennai, more particularly the properties in that area shall
be applied to the said property also.

¶39

10. The following order is passed:

¶40

a) Impugned order i.e., communication dated
23.06.2021 bearing reference Ma.Aa.13.Va.Thu,Na.Ka.
No.R2/1268/2021 sent by the sole respondent is set
aside on the ground that opportunity has to be given
to the writ petitioner;

¶41

b) As the impugned communication together with
the annexure is being set aside only to facilitate an
opportunity being given to the writ petitioner, who
has made voluntary disclosure, though obvious, it is
made clear that no opinion or view has been expressed
on the merits of the matter in this order. Respondent
or any other Officer in Chennai Corporation who is
vested with the power to assess property tax shall
carry out the revision/assessment after furnishing the
break up in terms of sq.ft, type of usage and other
parameters or in other words a working sheet to the
writ petitioner within a fortnight from today i.e., on
or before 09.09.2021 give an opportunity to writ
petitioner to respond to working sheet within a
fortnight therefrom i.e., on or before 23.09.2021
(opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner or
his duly authorized representative), do the assessment
by applying the obtaining parameters for assessment of
similar properties and communicate the same to the

¶42

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

¶43

writ petitioner under due acknowledgement within one
week therefrom i.e., by 06.10.2021. Though obvious,
if the petitioner is aggrieved, all other avenues of
appeal under IV Schedule to the Chennai City Municipal
Corporation Act, 1919 will be available to the writ
petitionerquatherevision/assessment
notwithstanding this order.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of with the above
directives. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶49

gpa

¶50

To

¶51

The Assistant Revenue Officer
Zone XIII (Adyar)
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.115, Muthulakshmi Salai
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶52

+1cc to Ms.S.Vaitheeswari, Advocate, S.R.No.43243

¶53

+1cc toMr.G.Derrick Sam, Advocate, S.R.No.43331

¶54

W.P.No.17801 of 2021 &
W.M.P.No.18986 of 2021

¶55

SSV(CO)
RLP(20/09/2021)

¶56

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

S.S.Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Revenue Officer

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

Jit Auto comp Vs state tax officer

Tvl.Bidhisha Sri Builders Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Statex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of

Aysha Banu Vs The Secretary

Y Kavitha Vs The Commissioner

Munuswamy Mani Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax