Writ Petition No. 25472 of 2012 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had not been in a position to show, by way of available records, thata prior notice had been issued to the petitioner College to showcause as to why the payment of property tax should not…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.9.2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.25472 OF 2012 THE SECRETARY [ PETITIONER ] IDHAYA ENGINEERING COLLEGE FOR WOMEN NAINARPALAYAM ROAD, CHINNASALEM,VILLUPURAM DISTRICT-606 201. Vs1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.2 THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT KURALAGAM, CHENNAI-108.3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT, CUDDALORE,CUDDALORE DISTRICT.4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VILLUPURAM-605 602VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHINNASALEM TOWN PANCHAYAT VILLUPURAM DISTRICT-606 201.[ RESPONDENTS ]This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Noticesof the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.922/2011/A1 dated 20.1.2012(demanding a sum of Rs.7,27,472/- towards house-tax) and his consequential notice in Na.Ka.No.922/2011 dated 22.8.2012 (demandinga sum of Rs.7,77,472/- towards house-tax) in respect of the petitioner college-buildings in Re-Survey No.407/1, NainarpalayamRoad, Chinnasalem, Villupuram District-606 201 quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal For respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran AGP for R1 to R4 Mr.S.Gunasekaran for R5
O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the fifth respondent had issued the impugned notices, dated20.1.2012 and 22.8.2012, demanding the payment of property tax ofRs.7,27,472/- and Rs.7,77,472/-, respectively, said to be payable by the petitioner College. The demand made by the fifth respondent is arbitrary and illegal.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further stated that the fifth respondent had no power or the authority toissue the impugned notices, by invoking the provisions of the TamilNadu Panchayats Act, 1994, as the petitioner College is located in an area coming under the town panchayat and the fifth respondent is alsoa town panchayat governed by the provisions of the Tamil NaduDistrict Municipalities Act, 1920.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further stated that the fifth respondent had not issued a show cause notice to the petitioner College before issuing the impugned notices, demanding the payment of property tax. Further, no opportunity had been given to the petitioner college to put forth its case and to show that the petitioner College is not liable to pay the tax, as it is exempted from the payment of such tax, under Section 83(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had not been in a position to show, by way of available records, thata prior notice had been issued to the petitioner College to showcause as to why the payment of property tax should not be demanded from the petitioner College. In such circumstances, this Court findsit appropriate to set aside the impugned notices, as the fifth respondent had not complied with the requirements of the principles of natural justice before issuing the said notices. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders, with regard to the payment of Property Tax, by the petitioner, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, after issuing a show cause notice and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner College. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. ConnectedM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar lanTo:1 THE SECRETARY THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.2 THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT KURALAGAM, CHENNAI-108.3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT, CUDDALORE,CUDDALORE DISTRICT.4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VILLUPURAM-605 602VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHINNASALEM TOWN PANCHAYAT VILLUPURAM DISTRICT-606 201.+ 1 C.C.TO MR.S.Gunasekaran Advocate Sr.59951+ 1 C.C. To Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Advocate Sr.60009+ 1 C.C. To Government Pleader Sr.59835Writ Petition No.25472 OF 2012KK[CO]KS 18/10/2012
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.