Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 275
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
K.R. Santharam
Versus
The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation
W.P. No. 13407of 1995
Decided On : 10-03-1999
R. Subramanian, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent.
Property tax assessment beyond 3 years cannot be sustained and the proposal to increase the tax with effect from 4 years prior to assessment year liable to be set aside.
Headnote:
PROPERTY TAX - ASSESSMENT - LIMITATION - REVISION OF ASSESSMENT - PERIOD - MADRAS CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1971 - SECTIONS 168 AND 483 - INTERPRETATION - PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT BEYOND 3 YEARS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED - PROPOSAL TO INCREASE TAX WITH EFFECT FROM 4 YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the notice issued by the respondent proposing to increase the half-yearly tax from Rs.847.14 to Rs.3,587.60 with effect from 4.1971. Petitioner contended that the assessment of property tax beyond 3 years cannot be sustained and the proposal to increase the tax with effect from 4.1971 is liable to be set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned notice issued by the respondent is not in accordance with the Madurai Municipal Corporation Act and they are not justified in claiming the same. The court further held that the respondent is not entitled to assess property tax and enhance the same for a period of more than 3 years proceeding the period 1995-96.
Issues: Whether the assessment of property tax beyond 3 years can be sustained?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on sections 168 and 483 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 to hold that the respondent is not entitled to assess property tax and enhance the same for a period of more than 3 years proceeding the period 1995-96. The court also relied on the judgment in Raghavachari P.S. v. The Special Officer, 1996 (I) CTC 324 : 1996 (I) L.W.402 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notice of the respondent dated 37.95 and permitted the respondent to issue notice of assessment for the period commencing from 1992-93.
1. Aggrieved by the notice of the respondent dated 37. 95, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various ground.
.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- He is the owner of the premises bearing door No.9, Sowrashtra High School East Lane, Madras-9. As per the original assessment , the property tax for the said premises was Rs.847.14 per half year. In the year 1972 the tax was enhanced to Rs.2,751.84 per half year. He filed a suit in O.S.No.413 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif, Madurai Town for a declaration that the assessment and levy of enhancement of tax is illegal and void. The said suit was decreed on 31. 73. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. The said judgment and decreed have become final. The respondent issued a special notice enhancing the tax to Rs.3993 per half year on 276. The petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.276 of 1977 before the District Munsif’s Court, Madurai. Though the said suit was initially dismissed, as per the direction of this Court in S.A.No.711 of 1979 after remand, the trial court decreed the suit on 3. 84 and the same has become final . While so, he was served with a notice dated 16. 95, stating that it has been proposed to increase the half yearly tax from Rs 847.14 to Rs.3,587.60 with effect from 4. 1971. In the light of the decree granted earlier, the respondent cannot revise the assessment for more than the period of 3 years. The respondent having kept quiet for more than 11 years, now they cannot seek a revise the tax with effect from i 4. 1971 which will be in contravention of section 168 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioner also received a notice under Rule 9 read with Rule 15(2) of Part II schedule II and proviso rule 27 of part V schedule II of Madurai Municipal Corporation Act. The said notice is illegal. Contrary to law and all principles of natural justice. The said order fixing the half yearly tax at Rs.3567.60 does not even disclose the basis on which the tax has been fixed. In such circumstance, having no other remedy, he has filed the present writ petition.
.3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. The impugned notice issued by the respondent is in order and valid in law. In pursuance of the direction of in O.S.No.413 of 1972, fresh notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit objection, if any. The petitioner submitted a formal objection petition on 20.76. After considering the objections of the petitioner, Rule 8 notice was confirmed by special notice under Rule 9 Part II, schedule II of the Act, advising the petitioner to prefer a revision within 15 days if he is so aggrieved. The annual rental value was calculated after following the elaborate procedure as contained in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and Rules framed thereunder and in terms of the guidelines following during the general revision made on 10. 79, 4. 84 and 4. 93 property tax was accordingly levied at Rs.3587.60 with effect from 4. 71 . The interpretation placed on Section 168 of the Madurai city Municipal Corporation Act is misconceived and untenable. With these averments, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.R.Subramaian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.srinivasan, for respondent.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the impugned notice and in the light of section 168 and 483 of Madurai Municipal Corporation Act, contended that the assessment of property tax beyond 3 years cannot be sustained and the proposal to increase the tax with effect from 4. 71 is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the impugned notice is in accordance with the Madurai Municipal Corporation Act and they are justified in claiming the same.@BT-SMAL
