Disposed
S.Rajendra Prasad, v. the Commissioner
Madras HCWP(MD)/20753/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013 and M.P.[MD]Nos.2 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
S.Rajendra Prasad
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned notice passed by the respondent in Taxation No.27681WD-19 dated 09.12.2013 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas For Respondent : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian Standing Counsel
O R D E R
There is a sea of confusion in this matter. The reason is, the pleadings are not adequate and the facts have not been set out with clarity. In the hearing also, unfortunately, the factual details could not be culled out with specificity. To be noted, the respondent Municipality has not filed a counter affidavit, though this writ petition has been pending for eight long years, but learned Counsel chose to advance arguments in main writ petition without a counter affidavit and therefore main writ petition was taken up and heard out.
2. Be that as it may, suffice to say that the aforementioned position, captioned writ petition was taken up and heard out with the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides with the available papers and facts that have been projected in the hearing.
3. The facts projected in the hearing are as follows:
3.1. The writ petitioner purchased a immovable property in and by a registered sale deed dated 11.03.2010, registered as Document No.892, on the file of the jurisdictional Joint Registrar, viz., Joint Registrar Nagercoil. The immovable property purchased by the writ petitioner as can be culled out from the schedule in the sale deed is as follows:
1/6
W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013
2/6
W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013
4. Mr.H.Velavadhas, learned Counsel for writ petitioner, adverting to a Civil Court judgment dated 16.07.2003 submits that the aforementioned immovable property (said property) was assessed to property tax by the respondent Municipality on the basis that the writ petitioner's vendor was using the same for commercial purpose ie., running a biscuit factory but the writ petitioner's vendor had assailed enhancement of property tax by way of a civil suit being O.S.No.37 of 2000, on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Nagercoil and the same was decreed on 16.07.2003.
5. A perusal of the judgment reveals that a notice dated 01.04.1999 issued by the respondent to the writ petitioner's vendor has been assailed and a declaration regarding enhancement of property tax qua writ petitioner's vendor has been sought and an injunction in this regard has also been sought. The usual residual prayer has been framed as Issue No.4. The four issues framed in the suit reads as follows:
1.jhth fl ; olj ; jpw ; F gpujpthjp efuhl ; rp 1.4.99
3/6
W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013
; ; ; ; [ ; ; ; ; ;
; ; ; ;
; ; ; ;
njjpapy ; mDg ; gpa jd ; mwptpg ; g [ rl ; lg ; go bry ; yj ; jf ; fjh? 2.thjpf ; F jhthtpy ; nfl ; Ls ; sgo tpsk ; g [ if ghpfhuk ; fpilf ; fj ; jf ; fjh?
3.thjpf ; F jhthtpy ; nfl ; Ls ; s cWj ; Jf ; fl ; lis ghpfhuk ; fpilf ; fj ; jf ; fjh?
4.thjpf ; F fpilf ; f ntz ; oa ghpfhuk ; vd ; d?” [Extracted and reproduced as such]
6. The notice dated 01.04.1999 said to have been received by the writ petitioner's vendor has not been placed before this Court. It is not necessary to dilate more on this as there is no disputation that a suit of this nature is not maintainable.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is qua a notice signed on 09.12.2013 [to be noted, the notice does not bear a date, but it has been signed by the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality on 09.12.2013]. This notice does not mention the provision of law under which it has been issued. Learned Counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to Rule 9-A(3) of Schedule IV of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, when this issue came up for consideration in the hearing. The said Rule reads as follows:
“Rule 9-A. (3) The executive authority shall dispose of the revision petitions to reduce the tax already filed and those deemed to have been filed in terms of sub-rule (2) subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions contained in sub-rule (1).”
[Extracted and reproduced as such]
On a plain reading of the above provision, I am unable to agree that the impugned notice could have been issued under the above provision, but the power of the Municipality to assess the said property to property tax and demand the same besides enhancement of its revision from time to time cannot be disputed.
8. There cannot also be any disputation about the obtaining legal position that the writ petitioner's vendor's property tax liability up to the date of sale will become a charge on the said property and the writ petitioner has to necessarily discharge the same. If there is any disputation about the quantum of arrears, it is well open to the writ petitioner to take it up with the respondent Municipality.
9. Be that as it may, what is of significance is, learned Counsel for writ petitioner would submit that the said property has not been used for commercial purpose and it has been used as a residential house and it is let out to various lessees.
10. As a one-off case ie., meaning not to be cited as a precedent, considering the need to balance the rights of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4/6
W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013
assessee as well as the need to protect the Revenue, I dispose of the captioned writ petition by making the following order:
a) The respondent Municipality shall assess the said property in accordance with Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and the applicable Rules under the Taxation and Finance Rules, forming part of Schedule IV of this Act.
b) The above exercise shall be commenced within a fortnight from today ie., on or before 30.11.2021 and shall be completed within four weeks therefrom ie., on or before 28.12.2021.
c) The above assessment will be operative from the current half year (now running) which commenced on 01.10.2021.
d) Up to 30.06.2021, the tax to be paid by the writ petitioner from the date of purchase ie., 01.03.2010 shall also be determined by the respondent Municipality after giving adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner.
e) With regard to the arrears of the writ petitioner's vendor, it is open to the respondent Municipality to raise a separate demand in accordance with law and the same will be subject to any rights which the writ petitioner may have in this regard.
f) All payments made by the writ petitioner thus far, including payments made pursuant to interim orders in the captioned writ petition shall be given due credit to.
11. The above order has been made (as alluded to supra), to end uncertainty qua quantum of property tax for said property for the writ petitioner assessee and also to protect the Revenue (in exercise of powers under Article 226).
12. As already alluded to supra, this order will not serve as a precedent as this has been made owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case also set out supra and the trajectory which the matter has taken thus far.
13. The captioned writ petition is disposed of on above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, captioned miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CRL)
// True Copy //
MR
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5/6
W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013
To
The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
W.P.[MD]No.20753 of 2013 16.11.2021
RK(29.11.2021) 6P 2C
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned notice assessing property tax was legal under the applicable municipal rules.
Whether the petitioner is liable for property tax arrears once a property is sold for commercial use.
How to balance the rights of the assessee and municipal revenue in a property tax dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Rajendra Prasad
The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court