Dismissed

A.Selvaraj v. The Commissioner

Madras HC24 Feb 2023WP/5490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a Distraint Notice issued by the Commissioner, Mettur Municipality for property tax arrears. The court found the petitioners were defaulters despite claims regarding property possession and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Distraint Notice dated 30.01.2023 construed valid; writ petition dismissed. First respondent to act on residential property only in accordance with law. Connected W.M.P. closed.

A.Selvaraj Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.5490 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.5490 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.5520 of 2023

¶7

1.A.Selvaraj

¶8

2.A.Selvamani ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Mettur Municipality, Mettur Dam,

¶11

Salem District.

¶12

2.The Tamil Nadu Industrial

¶13

Investment Corporation Ltd., Sri Lakshmi Complex, 1^st Floor, No.4/22, Omalur Main Road, Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004, rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Distraint Notice dated 30.01.2023 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Doraisamy

¶17

For R1 : Mr.L.P.Maurya, Standing Counsel

¶18

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

1/4

W.P.No.5490 of 2023

ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the Distraint notice dated 30.01.2023

¶23

on the ground that the subject property is not in the possession of the petitioners and is in the possession of the second respondent, Financial Institution from whom the petitioners had availed financial facilities and they had committed default.

¶24

2.The petitioners submit that the first respondent's officials are disturbing the peace of the petitioners by coming to their residence and threatening them that for non payment of property tax, their residential property will be attached.

¶25

3.Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.P.Maurya, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent.

¶26

4.Admittedly, the impugned Distraint Notice pertains to a different property and it is not the residential property of the petitioners. Earlier, by order dated 14.07.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No.37198 of 2003, filed by the first petitioner herein, this Court had directed the first petitioner 2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.5490 of 2023

¶29

to pay the arrears of the property tax to the first respondent and permitted the respondent to take action against the first petitioner under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 for the non payment of property tax by the first petitioner. But till date, the property tax has not been paid and only under those circumstances, the impugned Distraint Notice has been issued to the petitioners.

¶30

5.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing

¶31

Counsel appearing for the first respondent that as early as on 23.05.2022, the first petitioner had communicated with the first respondent stating that the first petitioner has entered into a one time settlement with the second respondent and after sale of the property, the property tax arrears of the first respondent will be paid.

¶32

6.All the aforementioned factors clearly indicate that the petitioners are defaulters in payment of property tax to the first respondent and have not paid the same despite several notices sent by the first respondent.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.5490 of 2023

¶36

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶37

vga Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶38

7.Insofar as the residential property of the petitioners is concerned,

¶39

the first respondent shall take action against the same only in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. stands closed.

¶40

24.02.2023

¶41

vga To

¶42

The Commissioner, Mettur Municipality, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

¶43

W.P.No.5490 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.5520 of 2023

¶44

4/4

¶45

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

A.Selvaraj v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Selvaraj 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

Murugeshan Rathinavel Subramaniam Vs The Assessment Unit

Murugeshan Rathinavel Subramaniam Vs The Assessment Unit

C.Sivasankaran Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M.Thangavel Vs The Government of India

M/s.Flower Garden Vs The Additional commissioner of Customs

M/s.Flower Garden Vs The Additional commissioner of Customs