Partly allowed

K.S.Faruk Ali v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Feb 2023WP/25316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed the Assistant Revenue Officer's order rejecting exemption from property tax for an allegedly vacant property. The court held the order was arbitrary and based on an incorrect legal premise, mandating payment of rent to allow a fresh application under Section 105.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to pay property tax and arrears in two installments; fresh application for vacancy remission under Section 105 to be filed within one week for disposition w

K.S.Faruk Ali Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.24290 & 24292 of 2022

1.K.S.Faruk Ali

2.K.F.Sarafunisha

... Petitioners

vs.

1.The Commissioner,

¶14

Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation,

¶15

Ripon Building Complex, Chennai - 03.

¶16

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶17

Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation-Zone-V, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, First Floor, Old Washermenpet,

¶18

Chennai - 600 021.

¶19

3.The Assistant Revenue Officer [North], Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, First Floor,

¶20

Old Washermenpet,

¶21

Chennai - 600 021. ... Respondents

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/10

¶23

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶24

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

¶25

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in Proceedings in Va.Va.A.Na.Ka.No.R-2/Special/2022, dated 27.06.2022 and consequential sealing of the premises on 11.08.2022 and quash the same as contrary to the provisions of the Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and direct the respondents to grant exemption from payment of property tax to the premises bearing Door No.43/23, Purushothaman Buildings, Wallers Road, Chintadripet, Chennai02.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan For Respondents : Ms.Aswini Devi Standing Counsel

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

¶29

passed by the third respondent in Va.Va.A.Na.Ka.No.R-2/Special/2022,

¶30

dated 27.06.2022 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to

¶31

grant exemption from payment of property tax to the premises bearing Door

¶32

No.43/23, Purushothaman Buildings, Wallers Road, Chintadripet,

¶33

Chennai.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10

¶35

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶36

2. Heard Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan , learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

and M s.Aswini Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶38

respondents.

¶39

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated

¶40

27.06.2022 passed by the third respondent rejecting the petitioners' request

¶41

for exemption from payment of property tax on the ground that his property

¶42

has been remaining vacant for long number of years. According to the

¶43

petitioners, by total non application of mind to the fact that the petitioners are

¶44

owners of only one portion in the first floor of the multi storied building,

¶45

which is now remaining vacant, the third respondent has rejected the

¶46

petitioner's representation, which is arbitrary and illegal.

¶47

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the building

¶48

complex comprises of ground and two floors and consists of various shop

¶49

portions. According to him, the petitioners are the owners of only one of the

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10

¶51

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶52

shop portions in the first floor. According to the petitioners, there are 41 shop

¶53

portions in the entire building complex and in the first floor, there are 6 shop

¶54

portions, out of which, the petitioners are the owners of only one of them. Therefore, he would submit that by total non application of mind to the

¶55

aforementioned facts, despite the fact that the property owned by the

¶56

petitioners is lying vacant, the petitioners' representation was rejected under

¶57

the impugned order.

¶58

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit on

¶59

instructions that the petitioners are willing to pay the property tax amount

¶60

including the arrears up to date. The said undertaking given by the petitioners

¶61

is recorded.

¶62

6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents stating

¶63

that only in accordance with the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal

¶64

Corporation Act, 1919, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioners

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10

¶66

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶67

had only sought for exemption from payment of property tax, but did not seek

¶68

for Vacancy Remission as per the provisions of Section 105 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and therefore, according to them, the representation of the petitioners was rightly rejected under the impugned order.

¶69

7. Ultimately, the respondents are interested only in the revenue. As

¶70

the petitioners are willing to pay the property tax demanded by the

¶71

respondents including the arrears, the interest of the petitioners will have to

¶72

be protected. As seen from the impugned order, none of the conditions raised

¶73

by the petitioner in this writ petition as observed supra , have been

¶74

considered. The petitioners seek for vacancy remission as per the provisions

¶75

of Section 105 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. Section 105 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 reads as

¶76

follows:

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10

¶78

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶79

" 105. Vacancy remission .—(1) When any building whether ordinarily let o r occupied by the owner himself has been vacant and inlet for thirty or more consecutive days in any half-year, the commissioner shall remit so much, not exceeding one-half of such portion of the tax as relates to the building only as is proportionate to the number of days during which the building was vacant and unlet in the half-year.

¶80

(2) Every claim for remission under sub-section (1) shall be made during the half-year in respect of which the remission is sought or in the following half-year and not afterwards.

¶81

(3) (a) No claim for such remission shall be entertained unless the owner of the building or his agent has previously thereto delivered a notice to the commissioner—

¶82

(i) that the building is vacant and unlet ; or

¶83

(ii) that the building will be vacant and unlet from a specified date either in the half-year in which notice is delivered or in the succeeding halfyear.

¶84

(b) The period in respect of which the remission is made shall be calculated--

¶85

(i) if remission is sought in respect of the half-year in which notice is delivered, from the date of delivery of the notice or from the date on which the building became vacant and unlet, whichever is later ; and

¶86

(ii) if remission is sought in respect of the half-year succeeding that in which the notice is delivered, from the commencement of the half-year in respect of which remission

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10

¶88

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶89

is sought or from the date on which the building became vacant and unlet, whichever is later.

¶90

(c) Every notice under clause (a) shall expire with the half-year succeeding that during which it is so delivered, and shall have no effect thereafter."

¶91

8. Since the contentions of the petitioners, which have been raised

¶92

in this writ petition, have not been considered under the impugned order, the

¶93

impugned order has to be necessarily quashed, as it is a non speaking order

¶94

and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. However, the petitioners will have to be put on terms and the property tax payable for the subject

¶95

property including the arrears will have to be necessarily paid by the

¶96

petitioners to enable the respondents to re-consider the issue once again, as to

¶97

whether the petitioners are entitled for vacancy remission as per the provisions of Section 105 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act,

¶98

1919 or not.

¶99

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10

¶100

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶101

9. For the forgoing reasons, the petitioners are directed to pay the

¶102

property tax for the subject property including the arrears, as claimed by the

¶103

respondents-Corporation, in two installments within a period of two weeks,

¶104

i.e, 1 st installment shall be paid by the petitioners on or before 05.03.2023 and

¶105

nd the 2 installment shall be paid on or before 05.04.2023. On payment of the

¶106

aforesaid amounts within the stipulated time, the impugned order passed by

¶107

the respondents is quashed. The petitioners are directed to file a fresh application seeking for vacancy remission for their property under the provisions of Section 105 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act,

¶108

1919, within a period of one week. On receipt of the said application, the respondents shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the same, after giving due consideration to the contentions raised by the

¶109

petitioners in this writ petition, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶110

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10

¶111

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶112

10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No

¶113

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶114

02.02.2023

¶115

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order rsi

¶116

¶117

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation, Ripon Building Complex, Chennai - 03.

¶118

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation-Zone-V, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, First Floor, Old Washermenpet, Chennai - 600 021.

¶119

3.The Assistant Revenue Officer [North], Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, First Floor, Old Washermenpet, Chennai - 600 021.

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10

¶121

W.P.No.25316 of 2022

¶122

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶123

rsi

¶124

W.P.No.25316 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.24290 & 24292 of 2022

¶125

02.02.2023

¶126

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10

K.S.Faruk Ali v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Faruk Ali v. The Commissioner

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

Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu Vs Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

N.Chakriavarthy Vs The District Collector

M/s.Lenovo India Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Lakshmi Ammal Vs The Additional commissioner (Ra and R)

T.Umavathi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Avtec Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise