Disposed

Muthumari Manamagil Mandram v. The State Tax Officer

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19938/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order. The High Court disposed of the matter by remitting the case to the assessing authority to redo the assessment after a personal hearing, applying the principles of the doctrine of mutuality.

What did the court decide?

Remittance of the case to the assessing authority to redo the assessment after a personal hearing, applying principles of the doctrine of mutuality.

Muthumari Manamagil Mandram Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19938 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19938 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16914 and 16915 of 2024

¶7

Muthumari Manamagil Mandram, Represented by its Secretary, Kasirajan

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural (West Circle), Madurai.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Assessment Order passed by the respondent in Asst.No.33625043896/2014-15, dated 12.03.2024, and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Bashyam For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.19938 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Assessment

¶19

Order passed by the respondent in Asst.No.33625043896/2014-15, dated 12.03.2024, for the assessment year 2014-2015.

¶20

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is challenged on the premise that it is passed contrary to the law laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs Calcutta Club Ltd., reported in (2019) 19 SCC 107 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of 46 th amendment held that the doctrine of mutuality continues to be applicable to incorporated and unincorporated members of club even after 46 th amendment to the Constitution of India. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶21

“(1) The doctrine of mutuality continues to be applicable to incorporated and unincorporated members of clubs after the 46 th Amendment adding Article 366(29-A) to the Constitution of India.

¶22

(2) Young Men's Indian Association (supra) and other judgments which applied this doctrine continue to hold the field even after the 46 th Amendment.

¶23

(3) Sub-clause (f) of Article 366 (29-A) has no application to members' club.”

¶24

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

¶25

2/5

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.19938 of 2024

¶27

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a detailed reply was filed in response to the notice, wherein it was stated that doctrine of mutuality would apply between the subject club and the members. However, the same has not been dealt with in the impugned order of assessment.

¶28

4. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the petitioner did not produce the details sought by the respondent in the impugned order, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same were already produced and they are ready and willing to produce once again, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Additional Government Pleader did not seriously object to the same.

¶29

5. In view thereof, the matters are remitted back and the petitioner shall produce the documents as sought for by the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the assessing authority shall redo the assessment and pass orders, by applying the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Club stated supra, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, within a period of two weeks therefrom.

¶30

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

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.19938 of 2024

¶33

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

21.08.2024

¶35

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶36

To:

¶37

The State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural (West Circle), Madurai.

¶38

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

¶39

4/5

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.19938 of 2024

¶41

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶42

Nsr

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.19938 of 2024

¶44

21.08.2024

¶45

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

¶46

5/5

Muthumari Manamagil Mandram v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthumari Manamagil Mandram v. The State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Velmurugan Stores Vs The Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Kalyani W/O.(Late) Ayappan Vs State Rep. by Chief Secretary

S.Palanisamy, Vs the Inspector General of

Joy Recreation Club Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Rajan .C Vs The Commissioner

Risadhudheen, Vs State Represented by Its