Disposed

Sri Kachi Kamakoti Peetathipat v. Govt. of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Jun 2021WP/18912/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two Writ Petitions filed by the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam challenging an order rejecting exemption from Urban Land Tax. It held exemption applies only to properties directly utilized for religion with no income, but allowed the petitioner to submit fresh representations regarding assessment procedures. The petitions were disposed of without merits consideration on the exemption

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representations regarding improper assessment; competent authority to consider same and pass orders on merits. Exemption claim dismissed by observation.

Sri Kachi Kamakoti Peetathipat Vs Govt… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.18912 of 2005 & 9724 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.Nos.10851 & 16976 of 2006

¶6

Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetathipathi Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Srimadam Samasthanam, Rep. By its Manager, Kancheepuram.

¶7

..Petitioner in both W.Ps.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Government of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.

¶10

2.Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Reforms,

¶11

Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶12

...RR1 and R2 in WP 18912/2005 and WP 9724/2006

¶13

3.Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Kancheepuram.

¶14

...R3 in WP 18912/2005 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax , Tiruchirapalli ...R3 in WP 18912/2005 4.Special Tahsildar (ULT), Kancheepuram. ..R4 in WP 18912/2005 4. Special Tahsildar(ULT) Kumbakonam ...R4 in WP 9724/2006

¶15

Prayer in W.P.No.18912/2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 24.02.2005 in GO.Ms.No.1 D No.151 Department of

¶16

Revenue Na.Ni.U.3(2) and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the respondents from assessing, demanding and collecting urban land tax for TS Nos.(1) 1153 Ward 1 Block 18 (2) 2591 Ward 4 Block 30 (3) 2526/1 and 2 Ward 4 Block 29 Kancheepuram.

¶17

Prayer in W.P.No.9724/2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 28.06.2005 in GO.Ms.No.471 Department of Revenue Na.Ni.U.3(2) and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the respondents from assessing, demanding and collecting urban land tax for TS Nos.2297 and 2299 in Ward 7 Block 48 Kumbakonam Town.

¶18

(In both W.Ps.)

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran (Government Advocate)

¶21

COMMON ORDER

¶22

The order of rejection to grant exemption from payment of Urban Land Tax issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 D No.151, Department of Revenue, dated 24.02.2005, is under challenge in W.P.No.18912 of 2005 and further relief is sought for, to forbear the respondents from assessing, demanding and collecting urban land tax for TS Nos.(i) 1153 Ward 1 Block 18 (ii) 2591 Ward 4 Block 30 (iii) 2526/1 and 2 Ward 4 Block 29 Kancheepuram. In W.P.No.9724 of 2006, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the 1^st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.471, Department of Revenue, dated 28.06.2005 and further relief is sought for, to forbear the respondents from assessing, demanding and collecting urban land tax for TS Nos.2297 and 2299 in Ward 7 Block 48 Kumbakonam Town.

¶23

2.The petitioner is Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetathipathi Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Srimadam Samasthanam and states that they owned several immovable properties across the State of Tamil Nadu and in other places. The petitioner owns and possesses urban land as defined under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966.

¶24

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is fair enough to contend, by stating that the tax assessed is improper and not inconsonance with various other orders issued by the Government. Thus, the taxes to be paid must be arrived by following the procedures and by considering the facts and circumstances, as well as the objections raised by the

¶25

petitioner in this regard.

¶26

4.With reference to the challenge made regarding grant of exemption from payment of taxes, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1 D No.151, Department of Revenue, dated 24.02.2005, states that only if the property is directly utilized for religious purpose, then alone the exemption from payment of taxes may be granted and if any income is derived from the property, then exemption cannot be granted. The reasons stated, undoubtedly is sound and convincing. The petitioner cannot seek exemption for all the properties they own and thus, the relief as such sought for deserves no merit consideration.

¶27

5.However, the petitioner states that the manner in which the taxes assessed is improper and the Government orders as well as objections raised in this regard are to be considered. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation, setting out all the facts and circumstances, for the purpose of assessment of taxes, by following the procedures if required, if not already made and on receipt of any such representation from the petitioner, the authority competent has to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

6.With these observations, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

gsa

¶34

¶35

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Revenue, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.

¶36

2.Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Reforms,

¶37

Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶38

3.Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Kancheepuram.

¶39

4.Special Tahsildar (ULT), Kancheepuram.

¶40

The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Tiruchirapalli.

¶41

The Special Tahsildar (ULT) Kumbakonam.

¶42

+1cc to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.29680

¶43

+1cc to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.29679 [05/05/2022] +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.29404

¶44

W.P.Nos.18912 of 2005 & 9724 of 2006

¶45

EV(CO) SB(15/07/2021)

Sri Kachi Kamakoti Peetathipat v. Govt. of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kachi Kamakoti Peetathipat v. Govt. of Tamilnadu

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

Sunrise Knitting Mills, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S. Motorola India (P) Ltd., Vs the Special Assist. Commercial

M/S.Kerala Small Industries Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

Presentation Nursery and Primary School Vs The Secretary

M/s.Sri Ganga Steel Ent. Pvt. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Tvl. Sri Renuka Electronics Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)