SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Mad) 466

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
Prashanth Textiles Limited, represented by its Managing Director
Versus
The Executive Officer, Veerakeralam Town Panchayat
Writ Petition Nos.8913 and 8914 of 1999
Decided On : 05-02-2007

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel for D. Balaraman, Advocate. For the Respondent: G. Sankaran, Additional Government Pleader.

Administrative authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions are required to record reasons for their decisions to exclude chances of arbitrariness and ensure fairness in decision-making.

Headnote:

Property Tax Revision - Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act - 82, 83

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the special notice and consequent proceedings revising the property tax, citing lack of reasons and violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned proceedings did not contain reasons for the revision of tax and rejected the petitioner's objections cursorily. The petitioner's grievance was that the assessment proceedings/order was in violation of principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notice issued under Rules 9/10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act should contain reasons for the revision of property tax, and the impugned proceedings did not reflect any reason. The court held that the impugned proceedings were non-speaking orders and without any reasons whatsoever, and that the authorities had not applied their mind to the objective standards prescribed under the Act for determining the annual value and revision of property tax.

Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of reasons in the notice and impugned proceedings, violation of principles of natural justice, and the authority's failure to consider the various factors as set out in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for administrative authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to record reasons for their decisions, as it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures fairness in decision-making. The court also highlighted that the impugned proceedings were non-speaking orders and without any reasons, and that the authorities had not applied their mind to the objective standards prescribed under the Act for determining the annual value and revision of property tax.

Final Decision: The impugned proceedings were set aside, and the two notices were kept intact. The respondent was directed to give reasons in support of the notices within four weeks, and the petitioner was given the liberty to give objections within 30 days of receiving the reasons. The appropriate authority was instructed to consider any objections and pass appropriate proceedings/orders on merits and in accordance with the law expeditiously.

Judgment :-

Common Order:

Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the special notice undated and consequent common proceedings Rc.No.436/98 dated 13. 1999 revising the property tax.

2. The case of the petitioner in both the writ petition is that he is the owner of the property in Veerakeralam Town Panchayat. Notices under Rule 9/10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 were issued by the respondent Executive Officer by way of a Special Notice in respect of property tax in proceedings Nos.127451 and 127452. Such notices did not contain any reason for the revision of tax. Therefore, on 13. 1999, objections were submitted by the petitioner on several aspects objecting to the revision of tax, which culminated in passing of the common impugned proceedings/order Rc.No.436/98 dated 13. 1999. It is the special notice and the proceedings dated 13. 1999, which are under challenge before this Court. Though an appeal has been preferred to the President on 24. 1999, the matter remains as such. The present writ petitions have been filed primarily on the ground that the Special Notice does not contain any reason whatsoever for revision of the property tax in question and the impugned proceedings/order has been passed contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and without any basis and bereft of reasons. It is contended that the authorities cannot revise the property tax merely on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government but there should be some objectivity and reasons for doing so. The proceedings/order dated 13. 1999 is a nonspeaking order and without application of mind.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice did not contain any reasons and the petitioner was not able to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, prejudice. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent municipality did not consider the fair or standard rent which would be normally be payable for the building under Rent Control Act in force and it is one of the parameters to determine the value of the property. In the instant case, the enhancement of tax has been made without considering or determining the fair or standard rent for the property. The authority should first arrive at the correct annual value of the building before proceeding further in the matter. On the contrary, the authority has merely stated that he had taken into consideration the guideline value fixed by the Government. The proceedings/order dated 13. 1999 refers to various Government Orders, on the basis of which property tax has been revised, without referring to such Government Orders in the special notice. In any event, no materials was referred to or reasons given in the notice. In the proceedings dated 13. 1999 passed pursuant to the notice issued under Rule 9/10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the authority has rejected the detailed representation made by the petitioner cursorily in one line. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that no personal hearing was given and that principles of natural justice have been violated. Therefore, it was contended that the assessment proceedings/order dated 13. 1999 is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, has to be set aside.

4. Sections 82 and 83 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act provides the manner in which the basic property tax and additional basic property tax should be determined and it reads as follows:-

"82. Minimum and maximum basic property tax, additional basic property tax, etc.-The State Government shall prescribe the minimum and maximum rates of-

.(a) basic property tax for the building or land having regard to

.(i) existing property tax;

.(ii) the value of the building and land; and

(iii) the use of the building;

.(b) additional basic property tax for every building with reference to its location,

.(bb) additional base p































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top