Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the abovedirections
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Local Administration, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Building…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 18.02.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENW.P. NO.24388 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 20091.Mrs. Savitha Gupta2.Mrs. Kiran Gupta.. PetitionersVersus1.The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Local Administration, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Building, Chennai.
The Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Office, Zone 3, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of TheConstitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamuscalling for the records on the file of the third respondent relating to the Notice dated 28.07.2009 in Bill No.1120 in Zone No.03 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue afresh demand notice to the petitioner for assessment made. For Petitioners : Mr.P.BalamuraliFor Respondents : Mr.R.Murali, (for R1) Government Advocate. Mr.V.Bharathidasan, (for R2 & R3)* * * * *
O R D E R https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, it has been pointed out by Mr.R.Murali, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and the third respondents that it is open to the petitioners to file an appeal against the final assessment issued by the respondent Corporation, on 03.11.2009,and received, on 9.12.2009, under Sec.138-G of the Chennai CityMunicipal Corporation Act, 1919, read with the relevant taxation rules. They had also submitted that it is open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds available to them before the Appellate TaxationTribunal. 3. In such circumstances, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy, as provided under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, raising all the available grounds, as per law. If the petitioners choose to file an appeal, they can do so, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On such appeal being filed, the AppellateTaxation Tribunal is expected to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Local Administration, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Building, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Office, Zone 3, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai.4 The Government PleaderHigh Court, Madras – 104+1 C.C. to Mr.P.Balamurali, Advocate – SR No.10847+1 C.C. to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate – SR No.11560W.P. NO.24388 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 200918.02.2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the abovedirections
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; theChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.