P.Ramankutty Menon v. The Commissioner,Tiruvottiyur Municipality,Tiruvottiyur

grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from takingany coercive steps to collect the taxes levied under the said demandnotices from the plaintiff. 4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.137 of 2002 in brief isas follows:-(i) The plaintiff therein is the owner of the building bearingDoor Nos.88 and 89, T.H.Road, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, and the sameis assessed to property tax in the name of the plaintiff.Previously, the annual value of the suit property was fixed atRs.30,000/- and the half yearly property tax was assessed atRs.4,062/- and the plaintiff was paying the same promptly. Accordingto the plaintiff, all of a sudden, a notice was served on theplaintiff by the defendant on 30.09.1999 by which the property taxwas enhanced from Rs.4,062/- to Rs.8,124/- by arriving at the annualvalue of Rs.60,000/-. It is the further case of the plaintiff thatthe Government had issued a Government Order with a specificdirection that the property tax should not be enhanced by 100% andunder no circumstances it should exceed 30% of the existing tax, butthe special notice did not mention any reason for enhancement ofproperty tax. It is contended by the plaintiff that the annual valueof the property should be arrived at only as per the formulacontained under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and RentControl) Act, but the special notice does not mention how the annualvalue was arrived at. It is the further case of the plaintiff thatthe defendant has not followed the procedure contemplated under theAct to arrive at the annual value and the enhancement of the propertytax is unjustified. Admittedly, the plaintiff preferred an appealdated 05.10.1999 to the Commissioner and thereafter a revision dated11.01.2000 to the Chairman, Tiruvottiyur Municipal Council, but,according to the plaintiff, there was no proper response. Since theproperty tax has been enhanced arbitrarily and unreasonable the sameis not valid. (ii) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing awritten statement interalia contending as follows:-The suit property was originally assessed as commercialbuilding and the property tax was levied taking consideration of themarket value of the land and the building prevalent then andfollowing the procedure as laid down in Section 4 of the said RentControl Act. The property tax was levied by the defendant before01.10.1998 as per Rule 14 (2) of the Taxation and Finance RulesFramed under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The defendant enhanced theproperty tax as per the circular issued by the Commissioner ofMunicipal Administration in R.O.C.No.60572/98 R1 dated 08.01.1999.The plaintiff preferred an appeal dated 09.10.1999 to theCommissioner, Tiruvottiyur Municipality and the appeal was confirmedby the Chairman as per the rules and the regulations.5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 2002 in brief isas follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) The plaintiff therein is the owner of the building bearingDoor Nos.85 and 85A, T.H.Road, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, whichconsists of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and athird floor and besides there is another building on the northernside of the building which is used as a car shed and the basement ofthe building and the southern side of the building were used asgodowns. According to the plaintiff, the third floor of the buildingis used as a residential building occupied by the plaintiff and hisfamily members and the building on the northern side in the groundfloor is used as a car shed. Previously, the ground, the first, andthe second floors are rented to third parties and the entire buildingbearing Door Nos.85 and 85-A were assessed to property tax asfollows:-(i)the half yearly property tax for the basement under AssessmentNo.25533 was Rs.2,102/-;(ii)the half yearly property tax for the ground floor was Rs.9,672/-;(iii)the half yearly property tax for the ground floor was Rs.9,672/-;(iv)the half yearly property tax for the second floor was Rs.4,232/-;(v)the half yearly property tax for the residential third floor wasRs.2,102/-; and(vi)the tax for car shed was Rs.532//- and the godown was Rs.1,130/-.and the plaintiff was paying the same promptly. According to theplaintiff, all of a sudden, notices were served on the plaintiff bythe defendant on 30.09.1999 by which the property tax was enhanced by100%. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the Governmenthad issued an Order with a specific direction that the property taxshould not be enhanced by more than 25% as per a Government Ordersince they are residential building and a car shed. It is contendedby the plaintiff that the annual rental value of the property taxshould be arrived at only as per the formula contained under Section4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, but thespecial notices do not mention how the annual value was arrived at.It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has notfollowed the procedure contemplated under the Act to arrive at theannual value and the enhancement of the property tax is unjustified.Admittedly, the plaintiff preferred an appeal dated 05.10.1999 to theCommissioner and thereafter a revision dated 18.0.2001 to theChairman, Tiruvottiyur Municipal Council, but, according to theplaintiff, there was no proper response. Since the property taxeshave been enhanced arbitrarily and unreasonable the same is notvalid. (ii) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing awritten statement inter-alia contending as follows:-The defendant denies the allegations in the plaint and statesthat the suit is not maintainable. The defendant stated that all thefloors are rented to the third parties. The defendant originally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessed property tax for the suit property taking consideration ofthe market value of the land and the building prevalent then andfollowing the procedure as laid down in fixing fair rent underSection 4 of the said Act. The property tax was levied by thedefendant as per Rule 14 (2) of the Taxation and Finance Rules Framedunder the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act"). The defendant enhanced the property taxas per the circular issued by the Commissioner of MunicipalAdministration in R.O.C.No.60572/98 RD dated 08.01.1999. Theplaintiff preferred an appeal dated 05.10.1999 to the Commissioner,Tiruvottiyur Municipality and the appeal was confirmed by theChairman as per the rules and the regulations.6. Though separate suits have been filed by the respectiveplaintiffs and separate judgments have been passed both by the trialcourt as well as by the appellant court the issue to be decided inthe above second appeals is one and the same. Hence both the appealsare being disposed of by this common judgment. 7. The trial court framed the following issues, namely:-(i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree fordeclaration as prayed for?(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree forpermanent injunction?(iii)To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?Thereafter, the trial court has framed the following additional issuenamely:-Whether the Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit?8. During trial, the respective plaintiff was examined as P.W.1and Exs.A-1 to A-7 have been marked and on the side of the defendant,D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 have been marked. Thetrial court, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidenceadduced in the case and also taking into consideration of theprovisions contained in Section 89 of the Act and certain decisions,has held that the suits are not maintainable as effective andalternative remedy is available under the Act itself to question theenhancement of property tax. Being aggrieved by that, the plaintiffpreferred appeals in A.S.Nos.53 and 51 of 2006 before the AdditionalDistrict Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Ponneri. The lowerappellate court, on an independent consideration of the entireevidence on record and the reasonings of the Court below and theprovisions contained in Section 89 of the Act and the decisionsrelied upon the respective parties, concurred with the reasonings ofthe trial court and dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved by thatthe above second appeals have been filed.9. In the memorandum of grounds of second appeals, thefollowing grounds have been raised as common substantial questions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law:-"(i) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that therelief of declaration and injunction cannot be granted eventhough the enhancement of property tax is not in accordancewith the provisions of the Act and the circular issued bythe Government of Tamil Nadu?(ii) Whether the courts below are wrong in holding thatdespite the enhancement not being in accordance to thecircular issued, the institution of the civil suit is barredby implication under Sec. 89 of the Tamil Nadu DistrictMunicipalities Act?(iii) In the absence of a specific provision excluding thepower of civil court to declare an assessment as void or thecourts below right in drawing an inference of implied ousterunder Sec. 89 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act?(iv) Whether the courts below should have held that theprovisions of Sec. 89 of the Act would apply only wherethere is a minor discrepancy in arriving at the AnnualRental Value to be fixed by the Authority under the Act butwould not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court if thevery enhancement is void?(v) Whether the decisions of the courts below is correct inthe absence of evidence by the respondent to show that theenhancement claimed is in accordance with the provisions ofthe Act and the circular issued?(vi) In any event, the courts below should have decreed thesuit in the absence of proof that the assessment is inaccordance with the provisions of the Act. The failure todo so is illegal and prejudicial in nature.(vii) Admittedly, the enhancement not being in accordancewith the circular issued the courts below ought to have heldthat the very assessment is void and should have decreed thesuit. The finding of the courts below that the circular canbe challenged only by way of Writ Proceeding is illegal andarbitrary.(viii) The courts below are duty bound to compare theenhancements arrived at with the limitation or ceilingimposed under the circular as it is not the circular whichis under challenge but the enhancement which is contrary tothe same. Therefore, the decision of the courts below isunsustainable in law."10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant in each of theabove second appeals submits that any assessment or enhancement fixedcontrary to the norms circulated is void and hence the suits fordeclaration are maintainable. Learned senior counsel further submits https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that if the assessment is void or not in compliance with theprovisions of the Act or contrary to the circular issued andarbitrary in nature, the suits are maintainable and the same are notbarred under Section 89 of the Act. He further submits that sincethe annual value of the suit property has not been fixed ascontemplated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease andRent Control) Act, the consequent enhancement of property tax isinvalid and as such the suits are maintainable. Learned seniorcounsel for the appellant submits that the suit properties are notbeing used as commercial buildings, but the same are used only asresidential buildings, but on the contrary the defendant's contentionbefore the Courts below is that the suit properties are commercialbuildings. In support of the said contentions the learned counselrelied upon the following decisions:-(i) 1992-1-L.W.110 (Chellammal v. Alandur Municipality). Inthe said decision, it has been laid down that when the basis of thelevy itself is wrong or that there is no basis at all for the levyand in that sense there is no substantial compliance with theprovisions of the Municipalities Act, it is open to the Civil Courtto declare the levy as illegal and in fact it is its duty to do so. (ii) (2008) 2 MLJ 649 (K.R.Abirami v. Kumbakonam Municipality).In the said decision, it has been laid down that an enhancement ofproperty tax by the Municipality in a general revision withoutcomplying with Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules, Schedule IV to TamilNadu District Municipalities Act (5 of 1920), without issuing apublic notice and inviting objection is non est in law. A suitchallenging the assessment to property tax is maintainable in a CivilCourt if it did not in substance and in effect comply with theprovisions of the Act.(iii) (2006) 148 STC 419 (Mad) (Sree Murugan Engg. Products v.C.T.O.). In the said decision it has been laid down as under:-"Lastly, we shall deal with the plea regarding alternativeremedy as raised by the Revenue. Except for a period whenarticle 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-secondAmendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternativeremedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposedlimitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenienceand discretion and never a rule of law. In HarbanslalSahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107, theSupreme Court held that the rule of exclusion of writjurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a ruleof discretion and not one of compulsion and the court mustconsider the pros and cons of the case and then mayinterfere if it comes to the conclusion that the petitionerseeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or wherethere is failure of principles of natural justice or wherethe orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction orthe vires of an Act is challenged".(iv) AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78 (1) (Dhulabhai v. State of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.P.). In the aforesaid decision, a Constitution Bench of theSupreme Court has laid down the following principles regarding theexclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court:-"32. Neither of the two cases of Firm of Illuri Subayya, 1964-1SCR 752 = (AIR 1964 SC 322) or Kamla Mills, 1966 1 SCR 64 = (AIR 1965SC 1942) can be said to run counter to the series of cases earliernoticed. The result of this inquiry into the diverse views expressedin this Court may be stated as follows:(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of thespecial tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must beheld to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do whatthe civil courts would normally do in a suit. Suchprovision, however, does not exclude those cases where theprovisions of the particular Act have not been complied withor the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity withthe fundamental principles of judicial procedure.(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of thecourt, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act tofind the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remediesprovided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain thejurisdiction of the civil court.Where there is no express exclusion the examination of theremedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find outthe intendment becomes necessary and the result of theinquiry may be decisive. In the latter case, it isnecessary to see if the statute creates as special right ora liability and provides for the determination of the rightor liability and further lays down that all questions aboutthe said right and liability shall be determined by thetribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normallyassociated with actions in civil courts are prescribed bythe said statute or not.(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act asultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constitutedunder the Act. Even the High Court cannot go into thequestion on a revision or reference from the decision of theTribunals.(4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional orthe constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged,a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include adirection for refund by the Limitation Act but it is not acompulsory remedy to replace a suit.(5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery forrefund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limitsor illegally collected a suit lies.(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from its constitutionality are for the decision of theauthorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders ofthe authorities are declared to be final or there is anexpress prohibition in the particular Act. In either casethe scheme of the particular Act must be examined because itis a relevant enquiry.(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court isnot readily to be inferred unless the conditions above setdown apply"11. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by thelearned senior counsel for the appellant, perused the decisionsrelied upon and other materials made available in the typed set ofpapers.12. For considering the aforesaid submissions of the learnedsenior counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to look into theprovisions contained in Sections 89 and 354 (1) of the Act, whichread as follows:-"89. Taxation Appeals Committee. - (1) There shall be aTaxation Appeals Committee for hearing and disposing of anappeal preferred by any person who is not satisfied withthe assessment order made by the executive authority underthis Act other than the orders relating to the duty ontransfer of property, -(i) for every town panchayat consisting of the Chairman ofthe municipal council who shall be the Chairman of theTaxation Appeals Committee and such member of members asmay be notified by the State Government from among themembers of the town panchayat;(ii) for every municipality, consisting of the Chairman ofthe municipal council who shall also be the Chairman of theTaxation Appeals Committee and four Councillors elected bythe council.(2) The business of the Taxation Appeals Committee shall betransacted in accordance with the rules made by the StateGovernment in this behalf.(3) An appeal against the decision of the Taxation AppealsCommittee may be filed within thirty days from the date ofthe order to the District Judge.(4) No appeal shall be entertained by the District Judge,unless the appellant deposits with the town panchayat ormunicipality, as the case may be, the entire amount of taxas decided by the Taxation Appeals Committee and theappellant shall continue to deposit the property tax withthe town panchayat or, municipality, as the case may be, asdecided by the Taxation Appeal Committee till the disposal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the appeal by the District Judge.(5) Where as a result of any order passed in an appeal anyamount already deposited is in excess of the tax due, thedifference, after deducting the tax due, shall be adjustedtowards the tax, and fine due in respect of any otherperiod, by the municipality.""354. Assessments, etc., not to be impeached. - (1) Noassessment or demand made and no charge imposed, under theauthority of this Act shall be impeached or affected byreason of any clerical error or by reason of any mistake(a) in respect of the name, residence place of business oroccupation of any person, or (b) in the description of anyproperty or thing, or (c) in respect of the amountassessed, demanded or charged: provided that the provisionsof this Act have been in substance and effect, compliedwith. And no proceedings under this Act shall merely fordefect in form, he quashed or set aside by any Court ofJustice.A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that Section 89of the Act provides for an appeal remedy to the Taxation AppealsCommittee and further appeal to the District Court and as per theprovisions contained in Section 354 (1) of the Act, no assessment ordemand made and no charge imposed under the authority of this Actshall be impeached or affected by reasons unless that the provisionsof the Act have been in substance and effect complied with.13. In the decision reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 111(M.L.Krishnamoorthy v. Govt. of T.N.) a Division Bench of this Courthas laid down as under:-"4. It is not denied by the learned counsel for theappellant that the provisions of District Municipalities Actprovides for an appeal remedy to the Taxation AppellateCommittee under Section 89 of the District MunicipalitiesAct and further appeal to the District Court. On the faceof the availability of an alternative remedy, the plea takenby the appellant that the entire building has to be taken asone unit and different numbers allotted to the adjacentpremises could not be viewed as independent units couldeffectively be agitated before the Taxation AppellateCommittee. On the face of the assessment made, the propercourse for the appellant herein is to seek the appealremedy".14. In the decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3182(State of West Bengal v. Subhash Chandra Pratihar) the Apex Court haslaid down as under:-"A bar to file a civil suit may be express or implied. Anexpress bar is where a statute itself contains a provisionthat the jurisdiction of a civil Court is barred e.g., the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bar contained in S. 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Animplied bar may arise when a statute provides a specialremedy to an aggrieved party. S.86 of the Act restrains aparty from challenging assessment and levy of tax in anymanner other than as provided under the Act. A provisionlike this is the implied bar envisaged in S.9, C.P.C.against filing a civil suit."In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions,the cases on hand have to be considered.15. Admittedly, the suit properties have been assessed toproperty tax on the annual values and the half yearly taxes have beenassessed. Admittedly, the said half yearly taxes have been enhancedby 100% by the defendant by basing reliance on the circular issued bythe Commissioner for Municipal Administration in R.O.C.No.60572/98 R1dated 08.01.1999. The contention of the respective plaintiffs isthat the Government has issued a Order with a specific direction thatthe property tax should not be enhanced by 100% and under nocircumstances it should exceed 30% of the existing tax and the annualvalue of the property tax should be arrived at only as per theformula contained in Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease andRent Control) Act and the defendant has not followed the procedurecontemplated under the Act to arrive at the annual value and theenhancement of the property taxes is unjustified.16. A perusal of the two circulars issued by the Commissionerof Municipal Administration namely R.O.C.No.60572/98/R1 dated31.12.1998 and R.O.C.No.60572/98/R1 dated 23.10.1998 do not stipulatethat the property tax should not be enhanced by more than 30% of theexisting tax. But in the said circulars the revised ceiling fixedfor enhancement of the property tax has been indicated as follows:-"1) Owner occupied Residential: Enhancement should not Building Exceed 25% 2) Rented Residential Buildings:Enhancement should not Exceed 50% 3) Commercial Buildings:Enhancement should notExceed 10% 4) Industrial Buildings:Existing Ceiling of150% retained."It is the contention of the defendant that treating the suitproperties as commercial building the property taxes have beenenhanced by 100% and the same is in accordance with the aforesaidcirculars and therefore the aforesaid contention of the plaintiffcannot be countenanced.17. It is contended by the respective plaintiffs that theannual values of the properties have not been arrived at as per theformula contained in Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease andRent Control) Act but on the contrary it is the contention of thedefendant that the provisions contained in Section 4 of the RentControl Act have been followed. Even the respective plaintiffs in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the plaints have admitted that they were paying the half yearlyproperty taxes levied on the basis of the market values of theproperty taxes without any demur or protest. As stated above, theenhancement has been effected only on the basis of the aforesaid twocirculars. Therefore, the question of fixing the market values ofthe properties once again, as contemplated in Section 4 of the RentControl Act, does not arise and therefore the said contention of theplaintiffs cannot be countenanced.18. As far as the other contention of the plaintiff that thedefendant has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Actto arrive at the annual values and the enhancement of the propertytaxes are unjustified is concerned, it has to be pointed out that theplaintiff has not pleaded as to which procedure contemplated underthe Act has not been followed. The aforesaid pleading raised in theplaints is vague. 19. Learned senior counsel has also not elaborated orsubstantiated the contention of the plaintiff as to what procedurethat is prescribed under the Act has not been followed. Learnedsenior counsel only submitted that the provisions contained inSection 4 of the Rent Control Act has not been followed and he isunable to substantiate as to how the provisions of the circulars havenot been followed in enhancing the property taxes.20. Learned senior counsel for the appellants strenuouslycontended that the remedy provided for under Section 89 of the Act isnot effective and since the provisions of the Act have not beenfollowed the suits challenging the assessment or enhancement of theproperty taxes are not barred either under Section 89 impliedly orexpressly by the provisions contained in Section 354 (1) of the Act. 21. I am unable to countenance the aforesaid submission of thelearned senior counsel for the appellants for the reason that aspointed out above the learned senior counsel is unable tosubstantiate as to what procedure that is contemplated under the Acthas not been complied with by the defendant.22. The contention of the learned senior counsel for theappellants is that the suit properties are not being used ascommercial buildings but the same are used only as residentialbuildings, but on the contrary the defendant's contention before theCourts below is that the suit properties are commercial buildings. Ithas to be pointed out that this factual dispute can be adjudicatedonly on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the respectiveparties before the authorities constituted under the Act. Since thisCourt has come to the conclusion that the suits are not maintainable,it is open to the appellant in each of the above appeals to raise theaforesaid issue before the authorities concern, if they chose tochallenge the enhanced assessment before the authorities constitutedunder the Act.23. The contention of the defendant is that the market valuesof the suit properties were arrived at by applying the principles https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contained in Section 4 of the Rent Control Act originally and theexisting property taxes were enhanced by complying with the criterialaid down in the two circulars and the defendant has furthercontended that the circulars are not being challenged by theplaintiff. 24. In the decision reported in 1992-1-L.W.110 (referred tosupra) and (2008) 2 MLJ 649 (referred to supra) it has been laid downthat the suit challenging the assessment of property tax ismaintainable in a Civil Court if it did not in substance and ineffect comply with the provisions of the Act and therefore theaforesaid two decisions are not applicable to the facts of thesecases.25. In the decision reported in (2006) 148 STC 419 (Mad)(referred to supra) while considering the maintainability of a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it has beenlaid down that the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of thefundamental rights or where there is failure of principles of naturaljustice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly withoutjurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged, then theavailability of an alternative remedy is not a bar for entertainingthe writ petition. But in the cases on hand the facts are differentand it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are seeking toenforce any of the fundamental rights or the principles of naturaljustice have been violated or the proceedings issued by the defendantlevying the property taxes are without jurisdiction or the vires ofthe Act is being challenged and therefore the aforesaid decision isnot of any assistance to the plaintiffs / appellants.26. In the decision reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78 (1)(referred to supra) it has been laid down that the questions of thecorrectness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality arefor the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie ifthe orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is anexpress prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the schemeof the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevantenquiry. If the facts of the present cases are considered in thelight of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court it hasto be pointed out that since the effective alternative remedy by wayof an appeal to the Taxation Appeals Committee and further appeal tothe District Court is provided under Section 89 of the Act, a civilsuit challenging the enhancement of the assessment will not lieunless it is pleaded and established that the procedure contemplatedin the Act has not been followed. 27. A reading of Section 354 (1) of the Act makes it clear thatno assessment or demand made and no charge imposed, under theauthority of this Act shall be impeached or affected unless theprovisions of the Act have been in substance and effect compliedwith. So there is an express bar for institution of the suit andonly exception is that only in a case where the provisions of the Acthave not been in substance and effect complied with in enhancing theproperty tax, then the suit will lie but not otherwise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. Therefore, this Court is unable to countenance thecontentions put forth by the learned senior counsel for the appellantin each of the above appeals. The Courts below have relied uponvarious decisions and have applied the correct legal principlesapplicable to the facts of these cases and hence this Court findsabsolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of theCourts below. In view of the legal principles laid in the aforesaiddecisions, this Court is of the considered view that no questions oflaw much less any substantial questions of law arises forconsideration in the above second appeals.29. For the aforesaid reasons, the above second appeals failand the same are dismissed. However, there will be no order as tocosts. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarsrkTo1. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Ponneri.2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur.+2 cc to Mr.Dhiraviyanathan, Advocate, SR.No.44628,44629 Judgment in S.A.Nos.626 and 449 of 2009and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2009CK {CO}TP/25.9.2009.