Procedural irregularities and failure to consider the character of the land and its subsequent sale can lead to the setting aside of assessment orders and allow for reassessment of tax liability.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. It has been stated by the petitioner that he is the owner of the property in S.No.392 of Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore, having obtained an extent of 74 cents in a partition suit, in O.S.No.234 of 1975, on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. The said land has been an agricultural land both at the time of its partition and even thereafter. Since agricultural lands are excluded from the levy of Urban Land Tax, the land held by the petitioner was not subject to the assessment and levy of Urban Land Tax. While so, the second respondent had passed an order of assessment, for an extent of 11 grounds and 1080 sq.ft., vide ULT.Case No.26/KMR/1391, dated 20.93. The petitioner had not been served with the notice under Form 4(C), or the assessment order. However, the third respondent had made a demand, on 11. 98, directing the petitioner to pay tax from fasli 1398 to 1408. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a revision, under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, before the first respondent. The first respondent had granted stay of the collection of Urban Land Tax. While so, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1892/-to the third respondent, by cash, without prejudice to his rights, as per order of the first respondent, dated 30.99.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner before the first respondent was that the land in question was an agricultural land till it was sold in the year 1984. However, the first respondent, without considering the character of land and the sales effected by the petitioner, dismissed the revision petition. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that under the scheme of the Tamilnadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, the Urban Land, defined under Section 2(13) of the Act, is liable for levy of tax, either under Section 10 or under Section 11 of the said Act. After an order of assessment is passed, a copy of the assessment shall be served on the owners by the Urban Land Officer, such as the third respondent. Thereafter, the Urban Land Tax Officer is expected to serve a notice of demand on the assessee. Section 15 of the Act states that the third respondent shall serve a separate notice of demand for every fasli year. The order passed under Section 10 or 11 and the demand made under Section 14 may be subject to challenge under Section 30 of the Act. Under Section 30, a revision shall be filed by the assessee before the first respondent and the first respondent is empowered to modify, annul, reverse, order or remit the matter back for reconsideration. The petitioner has further stated that the demand notice, dated 11. 98, had been served on the petitioner and he had filed a revision before the concerned authority, on 12. 1998. It has also been stated that the land which was agricultural in character had been sold by the petitioner, in the year 1984, to third parties. The first respondent, relying on the inspection report of the second respondent, had stated that the land in question is not agricultural in character. Even if the character of the land had been changed subsequent to its sale in the year 1984, it was open to the respondents to proceed against the present owners of the land, who are in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the order of assessment, passed against the petitioner by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent, cannot be sustained. The liability of the petitioner to pay the tax had been extinguished on the date of the sale of the land and the names of the transferees have also been incorporated in the concerned revenue records.

5. The learned counsel had also stated that the third respondent cannot issue a single demand for several faslis since it is prohibited