This petition challenged a house tax demand notice. The court found prima facie no merit in the challenge directed the petitioner to pay the demanded amount which shall be refunded if tax enhancement is proved later.
Petitioner directed to pay the demanded amount as a deposit; authority required to record reasons for tax enhancement after payment.
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.6800 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD).No.6800 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.5251 and 5252 of 2022
N.Rasu
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Nainarkovil Union, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The President, Kezhakanvanur Village Panchayat, Nainarkovil Union, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice of demand for house tax dated 29.06.2020 for the assessment year 2020-2021 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and abuse of process of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gowrishankar For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Prakash Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.N.G.A.Natraj Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the demand notice demanding house tax for a sum of Rs.2,200/- for the period commencing from 2020 to 2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying Rs.55/- per annum as house tax. However, the house tax was unilaterally increased to Rs.550/- during 2019-2020 by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
W.P(MD).No.6800 of 2022
respondents on account of the fact that the petitioner had supported a rival candidate in the election for the panchayat. It is submitted that the rent has been revised by treating the petitioner differently from the other residents.
Assistant Registrar (CS I)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
sn
To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.
2/3
W.P(MD).No.6800 of 2022
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Nainarkovil Union, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The President, Kezhakanvanur Village Panchayat, Nainarkovil Union, Ramanathapuram District.
+1 CC to M/s.R. GOWRISHANKAR, Advocate ( SR-18727[F] dated 13/04/2022 )
+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP. ( SR-18624[F] dated 13/04/2022 )
W.P(MD).No.6800 of 2022
12.04.2022
MGJ(26.04.2022) 3P 7C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhanced house tax demand is illegal and an abuse of process of law.
Whether prima facie merit exists for quashing the notice of demand for house tax.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Rasu
District Collector, Ramanathapuram District
Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District
Block Development Officer, Nainarkovil Union, Ramanathapuram District
President, Kezhakanvanur Village Panchayat, Nainarkovil Union, Ramanathapuram District
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
