Dismissed

R.P.Krishnan v. Teh Commissioenr

Madras HC14 Aug 2024WP/24177/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a water tax demand notice issued by the CMWSS Board on the petitioner's deceased mother's property, raising a limitation ground. The respondents stated the annual accumulated charges form a continuous demand not barred by limitation. Finding no infirmity in the notice and arrears exceeding Rs.6 lakh, the court dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

R.P.Krishnan Vs Teh Commissioenr — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.24177 of 2005

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.24177 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.26389 of 2005

R.P.Krishnan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 3.

¶11

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

¶12

& Sewerage Board,

¶13

Rep. by Chairman, 1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai – 2.

¶14

The Senior Accounts Officer VII/ Special Tahsildar, Area Office VII, C.M.W.S.S.Board, 25, Satyamurthi Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 31.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 16.07.2005 received on 22.07.2005 and quash the same.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

W.P.No.24177 of 2005

¶20

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents For R1 : Mr.P.Prithivi Chopda Standing Counsel For R2 & R3 : Mrs.V.Vijayalakshmi Standing Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 16.07.2005 issued by the third respondent, thereby directed the petitioner to pay water tax.

¶23

The petitioner's mother owned the subject property and after

¶24

her demise, the petitioner is in possessing and enjoyment of the said property. He is the administer of the subject property. While being so, the demand notice dated 16.07.2005 was issued to the petitioner thereby demanding a sum of Rs.59,880/- as water and sewerage service tax, failing which the property will be auctioned and realize the amount. The petitioner raised the ground of limitation.

¶25

On instruction, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

¶26

the respondents submitted that every year the water and sewerage tax are

¶27

accumulated and as such it is a continuous demand and it cannot be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4

¶28

W.P.No.24177 of 2005

¶29

barred by limitation.

¶30

As of now, the petitioner is in arrears of water sewerage tax

¶31

to the tune of Rs.5,02,360/- and the charges to the tune of Rs.1,19,510/-. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.6,21,870/-, as of now. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the demand notice issued to the petitioner. The respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law as against the petitioner.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶33

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be

¶34

no orders as to costs.

¶35

14.08.2024

¶36

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶37

rts

¶38

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

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

W.P.No.24177 of 2005

¶41

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶42

rts

¶43

¶44

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 3.

¶45

The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board,

¶46

1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai – 2.

¶47

The Senior Accounts Officer VII/ Special Tahsildar, Area Office VII, C.M.W.S.S.Board, 25, Satyamurthi Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 31.

¶48

W.P.No.24177 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.26389 of 2005

¶49

14.08.2024

¶50

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

¶51

Page 4 of 4

R.P.Krishnan v. Teh Commissioenr

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R.P.Krishnan v. Teh Commissioenr

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Annadurai Vs The Joint Director of Agriculture

S.Thirunavukkarasu Vs The Secretary to the Government

C.Selvaraju Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

R.Srinivasan Vs the District Collector

S.Krishnamurthy Vs P.Durai

Tamil Ponni Export Enterprises Vs the Government of India