Allowed

S.Sathishkumar, v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Madras HC2 Feb 2024WP/2226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Property tax enhancement notices against a hotel owner were issued under a repealed municipal statute; the court quashed them for lack of jurisdiction, permitting fresh notice under the applicable Urban Local Bodies Act.

What did the court decide?

Special notice and demand notice dated 23.08.2023 quashed; liberty to issue notice under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998; no costs; connected MP closed.

S.Sathishkumar, Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2226 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

Writ Petition No.2226 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2410 of 2024

S.Sathishkumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Kanchipuram-631 502, Kanchipuram District.

¶12

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation, Kanchipuram-631 502, Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶14

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.2226 of 2024

¶18

impugned special notice dated 23.08.2023, and the demand notice dated

¶19

23.08.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent for Assessment No.008/008/900852 issued under Rules 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and quash the same for lack of jurisdiction.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan

¶21

For R1 : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader

¶22

For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner assails a special notice dated 23.08.2023 and the

¶25

consequential demand notice dated 23.08.2023.

¶26

The petitioner states that he is owner of a property in which a hotel

¶27

was constructed and is currently operating. It is further stated that the building was assessed in the assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2010. According to the petitioner, property tax was duly paid for the period running from 2018 till date.

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.2226 of 2024

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the special notice on the ground that the special notice was issued under a law which is no longer applicable. He also submits that the property tax liability has been enhanced beyond the amount payable in terms of Notification G.O.Ms.No.52, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department, dated 30.03.2022. The third ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity before enhancing the property tax significantly.

¶32

Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.

¶33

Mr.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel, submits that powers previously conferred under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 are now conferred under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and that the notice is not vitiated by reference to the wrong statute. He also submits that the impugned notice is merely a show cause notice and that the

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.2226 of 2024

¶37

petitioner has the opportunity to raise objections in relation thereto. He further points out that the revision is entailed by the additional construction put up by the petitioner.

¶38

On examining the impugned special notice, it is evident that it has been issued under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. At present, Kanchipuram is a municipal corporation, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Local bodies Act, after being brought within the purview of this Act in 2023.

¶39

The documents on record also disclose that respondents 2 and 3

¶40

proceeded to issue demand notice after issuing the special notice. Since such action has been initiated pursuant to a notice under an enactment which is no longer applicable, the orders impugned herein call for interference.

¶41

For reasons set out above, the orders impugned in this writ petition are quashed by leaving it open to the 2^nd respondent to issue a notice under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and take further action

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.2226 of 2024

¶45

pursuant thereto.

¶46

The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶47

02.02.2024

¶48

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No kj

¶49

To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶50

2.The Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Kanchipuram-631 502, Kanchipuram District.

¶51

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation, Kanchipuram-631 502, Kanchipuram District.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.2226 of 2024

¶55

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J