Remanded

G.Sekar v. Commissioner

Madras HC5 Feb 2024WP/6978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to a property tax demand notice issued without considering the petitioner's objections to a proposed tax enhancement. The court set aside the impugned proceedings, remanded the matter for fresh orders, and permitted fresh objections including on retrospective enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 07.02.2020 and consequential proceedings quashed/set aside; matter remanded to respondent for fresh orders after consideration of objections.

G.Sekar Vs Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.6978 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.6978 of 2021 and

¶7

W.M.P. Nos.7525 and 7529 of 2021

G.Sekar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Vellore-632 001. .. Respondent

¶12

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

¶13

praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling upon the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 07.02.2020 and consequential proceedings dated 20.11.2020 issued by the Respondent, quash the same and direct the Respondent to determine the property tax vide (assessment No.035/045/03033) in accordance with law.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Raghavan

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.S.Silambannan Senior Advocate for Ms.P.Shanthi, Standing Counsel

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.P. No.6978 of 2021

¶20

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 07.02.2020 whereby a demand notice has been issued to the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner had submitted its reply dated 25.10.2012 to the notification sent by the Respondent dated 08.10.2012 wherein it was proposed to enhance the property tax. However, the reply dated 25.10.2012 was not considered. After almost close to 8 years, demand notice was straightaway issued.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before raising all these demands, order considering objections ought to have been made. Failure to do so results in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the impugned notice proposing to enhance the tax retrospectively has been issued, which according to the petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of the Respondent.

¶22

Mr.S.Silambannan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

¶23

Respondent would submit that a reasoned order would be passed and all objections relating to the notification may be raised by the petitioner.

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶25

W.P. No.6978 of 2021

¶26

remanded back to the Respondent to pass orders afresh, it is made clear that all the questions are left open. The petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh objections relating to the notification dated 08.10.2012, including on retrospective enhancement of tax, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondent in turn shall pass orders within a period of 12 weeks therefrom. If for any reason the petitioner does not file any objection within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it shall be open to the Respondent to proceed in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

05.02.2024

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

W.P. No.6978 of 2021

¶31

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶32

mka

¶33

To: The Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Vellore-632 001.

¶34

W.P. No.6978 of 2021

¶35

05.02.2024

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

G.Sekar v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sekar v. 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

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

M/s. Sri Guru Air Systems Vs The Union of India

Tvl. Vel Enterprises Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

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

Sri Bairavi Agencies, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

P.Ravi Vs The Commissioner