Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3584
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN, J.
Sivagnanam
Versus
The Commissioner, Tindivanam
W.P.No.1353 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 17-08-2012
For the Petitioner:N. Suresh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R. Ravichandran, A.G.P.
The requirement for a special notice for increasing property tax and the right to a personal hearing before passing an order for the payment of property tax.
Headnote:
Demand Notice - Property Tax - The court set aside the impugned demand notice and consequential order, stating that the respondent should have issued a special notice for increasing the property tax payable by the petitioner and should afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order for the payment of property tax.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the issuance of a demand notice for property tax without a special notice for increasing the tax, and the court set aside the demand notice and consequential order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned demand notice and consequential order, and directing the respondent to issue an appropriate notice and afford a personal hearing to the petitioner.
Issues: Impugned demand notice for property tax without a special notice for increasing the tax.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent should have issued a special notice for increasing the property tax payable by the petitioner and should afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order for the payment of property tax.
Final Decision: The court ordered the setting aside of the impugned demand notice and consequential order, and directed the respondent to issue an appropriate notice and afford a personal hearing to the petitioner.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice, dated 28.05.2009, should not have been issued by the respondent, without issuing a special notice for increasing the property tax payable by the petitioner, in respect of the property in question.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent, had not refuted the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, the impugned demand notice, dated 28.5.2009, issued by the respondent, is set aside. The consequential order passed by the respondent, on 28.12.2010, is also set aside. However, it is open to the respondent to issue an appropriate notice to the petitioner, relating to the property tax payable by him, in respect of the property, bearing Door No.11/54/5, Gandhi Nagar, Tindivanam. The respondent shall also afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, before passing an order for the payment of property tax, payable by the petitioner.
5. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
