Disposed

P.Ravi v. The Commissioner

Madras HC23 Feb 2024WP/6288/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a vacant land tax levy from 2005-2011 on property the petitioner purchased in 2011, and a demand issued without notice. Respondents sought liberty to issue fresh notice; the court set aside the impugned order with liberty to proceed in accordance with law and closed the miscellaneous petition. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside with liberty to respondents to issue fresh notice; no costs; connected WMP closed.

P.Ravi Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.6288 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.6288 of 2021 and

¶7

W.M.P. No.6902 of 2021

P.Ravi

S/o. Ponna Gounder

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem-636 001.

¶13

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Suramangalam Ward Office, Salem-636 005.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Na.Ka.K19/3904/2020 dated 03.12.2020 on the file of the 2^nd Respondent herein quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Murugamanickam Senior Advocate for Ms.Zeenath Begum For Respondents : Ms.N.Devi

¶17

Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P. No.6288 of 2021

¶19

Standing Counsel for Salem Corporation

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition is filed challenging the notice/ order dated

¶22

03.12.2020 insofar as it levies vacant land tax for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2011, the same is challenged on the following two grounds:

¶23

a. The petitioner had purchased property vide a sale deed Document No.1622/2011 on 29.06.2011 and thus the impugned proceedings insofar as it levies vacant land tax prior thereto on the petitioner, is bad in law.

¶24

b. In any event, it was also submitted that the impugned proceedings which raises a demand has been made without even putting the petitioner on notice, thus made in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that they

¶26

may be granted liberty to issue fresh notice in respect of the property in

¶27

issue, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside

¶29

Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P. No.6288 of 2021

¶31

the impugned order, with liberty to the Respondents to proceed issuing notice against the property in issue, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

23.02.2024

¶33

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶34

To:

¶35

1.The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem-636 001.

¶36

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Suramangalam Ward Office, Salem-636 005.

¶37

Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P. No.6288 of 2021

¶39

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶40

mka

¶41

W.P. No.6288 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.6902 of 2021

¶42

23.02.2024

¶43

Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Ravi v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravi 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

Sri Bairavi Agencies, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

G.Sekar Vs Commissioner

M/s.M.a.K. Hotels and Resorts Private Limtied Vs The Municipal Commissioner

Tvl.Sampooranam Hosieries Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

Madras Craft Foundation society Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s.Padmavathi Srinivasa Vs The Joint Commissioner of GST