Allowed¶50

Mrs.Hussaina Shabbir, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jan 2025WP/12632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Property tax arrears demand notice; Greater Chennai Corporation; Zonal Office 15; Assistant Revenue Officer; Tax Collector; assessment not communicated before demand confirmed; speaking order; calculation details for each Assessment Year; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; Chennai City Municipal Corporation (CCMC) Act 1919; Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998; Hussaina Shabbir; writ petitions allowed; no costs; 22.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed with liberty; the 2nd respondent (Assistant Revenue Officer) directed to issue a separate Speaking Order giving the details of the calculation for each Assessment Year; connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions closed; no costs. ¶50

Mrs.Hussaina Shabbir, Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned demand notice dated 23.03.2022 (Z.O.15/R.D.C.R1/SPL/2022) seeking recovery of Rs.11,75,267/- in W.P.No.12632 of 2022, challenged by a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, is sustainable when the tax assessment/calculation was not communicated to the petitioner before the demand was confirmed. +1 more

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The calculation of the property tax ought to have been communicated to the petitioner before the demand was confirmed on her (applicable to the demands in both writ petitions).

¶44

Key takeaways

Since the assessment was shown for the first time only in the Counter Affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the writ petitions are allowed by directing the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Revenue Officer, to issue a separate Speaking Order giving the details of the calculation for each of the Assessment Years.ratio¶45
The Speaking Order is to enable the petitioner to work out her remedy in accordance with law either under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation (CCMC) Act, 1919 or under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C. Saravanan, J.; order dated 22.01.2025) allowed W.P.Nos.12632 and 13138 of 2022 filed by Mrs. Hussaina Shabbir under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging two property-tax demand notices issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Zonal Office 15, Greater Chennai Corporation: a notice dated 23.03.2022 (Z.O.15/R.D.C.R1/SPL/2022) seeking recovery of Rs.11,75,267/- up to the 2nd half of 2021-2022, and a notice dated 09.05.2022 (Bill No.06068, Ward 196) demanding property-tax arrears of Rs.13,38,688/- from the 1st half of 2018-2019 up to the 1st half of 2022-2023. Holding that the calculation of tax ought to have been communicated to the petitioner before the demand was confirmed, and observing that the assessment was shown for the first time only in the Counter Affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the Court directed the Assistant Revenue Officer to issue a separate Speaking Order giving the details of the calculation for each Assessment Year, enabling the petitioner to work out her remedy in accordance with law under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation (CCMC) Act, 1919 or the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed; no costs were imposed.

¶1

W.P.Nos.12632 and 13138 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.01.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.Nos.12632 and 13138 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.12078, 12080, 12082, 12487 and 12488 of 2022

¶9

W.P.No.12632 of 2022

¶10

Mrs.Hussaina Shabbir, W/o.Mr.Shabbir Abbas

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.

¶14

2.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zonal Office 15, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Sholiganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

¶15

3.The Tax Collector, Zonal Office 15, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

_____________ Page No. 1 of 6_

¶19

W.P.Nos.12632 and 13138 of 2022

¶20

Prayer in W.P.No.12632 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Impugned Notice of current and arrears demand for the Assessment Year in Z.O.15/R.D.C.R1/SPL/2022 dated 23.03.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to restore the assessment as it was existing assessment of 20172018 to 2018-2019.

¶21

W.P.No.13138 of 2022

¶22

Mrs.Hussaina Shabbir, W/o.Mr.Shabbir Abbas

¶23

... Petitioner

¶24

Vs.

¶25

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.

¶26

2.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zonal Office 15, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Sholiganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

¶27

... Respondents

¶28

Prayer in W.P.No.13138 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Impugned Notice of current and arrears demand for the Assessment Year I/2022-2023 in Bill No.06068 Ward 196 dated 09.05.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶29

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

¶30

_____________ Page No. 2 of 6_

¶31

W.P.Nos.12632 and 13138 of 2022

¶32

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Murugendran (In both W.Ps) For Respondents : For R1 and R2 : Ms.E.Abinaya Lakshana (In both W.Ps) for Mr.E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

In W.P.No.12632 of 2022, the petitioner is challenging the Impugned Communication / Notice dated 23.03.2022 seeking to recover a sum of Rs.11,75,267/- for the period up to 2^nd half of 2021-2022.

¶35

In W.P.No.13138 of 2022, the petitioner is challenging the Impugned Communication / Notice dated 09.05.2022 whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to pay property tax arrears of Rs.13,38,688/- for the period starting from 1^st half of 2018-2019 up to 1^st half of 2022-2023.

¶36

In other words, the Impugned Communication / Notice dated 09.05.2022 encompasses a composite demand for the period up to 2^nd half of 2021-2022 for a sum of Rs.11,75,267/-. The respective Impugned Communications / Notices in the respective Writ Petitions read as under:-

¶37

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

¶38

_____________ Page No. 3 of 6_

¶39

W.P.Nos.12632 and 13138 of 2022

¶40

Sl.No.

¶41

Sl.No.	W.P.No.	Date of Communication / Notice	Amount (in Rs.)	Period
1.	12632 of 2022	23.03.2022	Rs. 11,75,267/-	Up to 2^ndhalf of 2021-2022
2.	13138 of 2022	09.05.2022	Rs. 13,38,688/-	1^sthalf of 2018- 2019 up to 1^sthalf of 2022-2023

¶42

In the Counter Affidavit that has been filed by the 2^nd respondent, the

¶43

2^nd respondent has given a calculation as to how the tax has been arrived at.

¶44

This ought to have been communicated to the petitioner before the demand was confirmed on the petitioner.

¶45

Since the assessment is shown for the first time only in the Counter Affidavit that has been filed by the 2^nd respondent in these Writ Petitions, I am inclined to allow these Writ Petitions by directing the 2^nd respondent the Assistant Revenue Officer, Chennai, to issue a separate Speaking Order giving

¶46

the details of the calculation for each of the Assessment Years to enable the

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 4 of 6_

¶48

W.P.Nos.12632 and 13138 of 2022

¶49

petitioner to workout her remedy in accordance with law either under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation (CCMC) Act, 1919 or under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

¶50