Dismissed

A.Abdul Khuthoos v. The Commissioner

Madras HC29 Jun 2021WP/28179/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging a property tax assessment order. It held that factual disputes and lack of assessment details require an internal appeal before the competent appellate authority, as Article 226 does not adjudicate such questions. The petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer an appeal before the Competent Appellate Authority within two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

A.Abdul Khuthoos Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.28179 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :29.06.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.28179 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.32842 of 2018
A.Abdul Kuthoos ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Zonal Officer – 5,
61, Basin Bridge Road,
Chennai – 600 021.
3.Zonal Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Zone – V, No.61,
Basin Bridge Road,
Chennai – 600 021. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second
respondent in its reference No.Z.O.V.R.D.C.No.G-1/4079/2018 dated

¶6

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶8

W.P.No.28179 of 2018

¶9

08.09.2018 demanding arrears of tax for the property situated at Door No.11 (15), Police Commissioner Office Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 from 2/2012 to 1/2017- 18 amounting to Rs.4,67,883/- and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Baskar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
Standing Counsel for Income Tax
O R D E R
The order of Assessment of Property Tax, issued by the second
respondent in Proceedings dated 08.09.2018, is under challenge in the
present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
Assessment Order, did not contain the details regarding the assessment
made.

¶11

3. This Court is of the considered opinion that in this regard, the petitioner has to approach the Competent Authority or the Appellate Authority for verification of records, if any. The order of assessment is passed by the Original Authority. Therefore, the petitioner has to prefer an

¶12

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶14

W.P.No.28179 of 2018

¶15

appeal under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The factual disputes raised by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and such an adjudication with reference to the original records can be made by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is the Final Fact Finding Authority and therefore, exhausting the appellate remedy is important and would be of greater assistance to the High Court for the purpose of exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if any writ petition filed thereafter. Thus, the appellate

¶16

remedy need not be dispensed with, in all circumstances.

¶17

4. In the present case, the petitioner raised certain factual issues

¶18

which all are to be adjudicated before the Appellate Authority. Thus, the

¶19

petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Competent Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of filing such an appeal, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in a prescribed format and by complying with

¶20

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶22

W.P.No.28179 of 2018

¶23

the provisions of law. In the event of receipt of any such appeal, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law and by affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶24

5. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

29.06.2021
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
Pns

¶27

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶29

W.P.No.28179 of 2018

¶30

¶31

1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶32

2.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Zonal Officer – 5, 61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai – 600 021.

¶33

3.Zonal Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Zone – V, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai – 600 021.

¶34

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

¶35

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶37

W.P.No.28179 of 2018

¶38

Pns

¶39

W.P.No.28179 of 2018
29.06.2021

¶40

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

A.Abdul Khuthoos v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Abdul Khuthoos 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

M. Uma Vs Union of Inida

M/s. K & K Contech Engineering Vs Customs Central Excise and

M/S.M.M.Rubber Company Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central

Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax

Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax

Durga Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)