Allowed

N.Ramachandran v. The Chennai Metropolitan

Madras HC7 Apr 2021WP/2850/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition to quash a water and sewerage tax demand notice issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The notice was based on property tax assessments set aside by the same Court. The impugned notice was set aside, and the Corporation was directed to perform a fresh assessment within three months, enabling the Board to reassess.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice is set aside; the Corporation of Chennai is directed to assess property tax within three months; the Board is permitted to assess water and sewerage tax within three months

N.Ramachandran Vs The Chennai Metropolitan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.04.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶4

W.P.No.2850 of 2018 and

¶5

W.M.P.No.3515 of 2018

¶6

1.N.Ramachandran 2.R.Rajeshbabu .. Petitioners

¶7

-vs1.The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chennai-600 002.

¶8

2.The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Dr.Ranga Road, Abhiramapuram, Chennai-600 018. 3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. .. Respondents

¶9

[R3 – Impleaded vide order dated 17.03.2021 in W.M.P.No.23259 of 2020 in W.P.No.2850 of 2018]

¶10

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned final demand notice vide Lr.No.CMWSSB/Area XI/B&C/6663/2017 dated 25.01.2018, on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to await final adjudication of annual value at the hands of the Corporation of Chennai and follow the orders of this Court dated 27.11.2017 in W.P.No.25146 of 2017.

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The demand notice dated 25.01.2018, issued by the second respondent, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

¶14

2.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Chennai Corporation fairly made a submission that the earlier assessment of property tax made by the third respondent-Corporation of Chennai was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Corporation for fresh assessment of property tax.

¶15

3.It is an admitted fact that the first and second respondents are assessing water and sewerage tax based on the property tax assessment made by the Chennai Corporation. Thus, depending on the assessment to be made by the Chennai Corporation, the first and second respondents have to determine the tax to be levied for water and sewerage.

¶16

4.This being the admitted factum placed before this Court, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by granting liberty to the authorities competent, viz., respondents 1 and 2 to make a fresh assessment based on the property tax assessment to be made by the Corporation of Chennai.

¶17

5.Accordingly, the impugned demand notice passed by the second respondent in Lr.No.CMWSSB/Area XI/B&C/6663/2017, dated 25.01.2018 is set aside. The third respondent-Corporation of Chennai is directed to assess the property tax in respect of the premises belong to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such assessment of property tax by the Corporation of Chennai, the first and second respondents are permitted to assess the water and sewerage tax within a period of three months thereafter, enabling the petitioners to pay the taxes as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

6.With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned demand notice stands set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

abr

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1.The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Dr.Ranga Road, Abhiramapuram, Chennai-600 018.

¶26

3.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.
+1cc to Mr.P.B.Balaji, Advocate SR.No. 22091
W.P.No.2850 of 2018
PL(CO)
A.SK(16.06.2021)

¶27

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

N.Ramachandran v. The Chennai Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramachandran v. The Chennai Metropolitan

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

Mrs.a.S.Farhana Vs the Chief Revenue Controller

Keerthana Vs Arunkumar

Vidhya @ Malini Vs K.Kadhiravan

Mr.S.Subin Vinoth Kumar Vs The commissiner of Central

K.Parimalam, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

K.Karunanidhi Vs Dilip Sanghvi