The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner lacks standing to challenge a demand notice for property tax if the assessment and demand notices were issued in another party's name and that party did not challenge the assessment or demand notice within the prescribed period. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through a writ petition.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Tuticorin City Municipal Corporation, Tuticorin, addressed to the Manager, Canara Bank Branch, Tuticorin, stating that as the property tax had not been remitted, appropriate action would be taken for attaching the immovable properties, besides, water connection would be disconnected. In the notice, the Commissioner has further directed the Manager, Canara Bank Tuticorin, to submit receipts if any, to prove as to whether, out of 6,15,886/- property tax representing for the period between 1997-1998 and 2006-2007, has been paid. Aggrieved over the same, Mr. S.A.C. Hameed has filed the present writ petition.

2. According to him, the property at Door No. 19, Chidambaranagar, 2nd Street, Thoothukudi, originally belonged to Smt. Thirase Michier and that the premises was leased out to Canara Bank, Tuticorin. Subsequently, the petitioner and his wife K. Kanarunisha became entitled to the property, by virtue of aregistered sale deed, dated 4.1.1995. The tenant bank was in possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. According to him, the property was assessed to tax on the basis of fair rent at Rs. 3,386/- per half year and that the same was revised in the year 1997-98. During the second half year 1998-1999, the petitioner was informed that the property tax has been enhanced to Rs. 11,729/- per half year. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner or his wife. However, he remitted the amount and also informed the municipal authorities that the enhancement of property tax was very high and requested the authorities to reduce the same, but, without passing any orders, a notice dated 8.12.2004 was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 3,36,003/- being property tax payable for the year 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 for the first half year, in respect of assessment No. 500722.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, a legal notice dated 19.12.2004 was issued to the Corporation on behalf of the petitioner’s wife stating that enhanced tax from Rs. 11,727/- to Rs. 37,337/- for each half year was astronomically high. Subsequently, the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs. 1,05,498/- by way of demand draft, but no receipt was given. When the matter stood thus, the respondent without any further notice, once again has issued a demand notice dated 18.9.2006, to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Tuticorin, the occupant/tenant demanding a sum of Rs. 6,15,886/- as the property tax and arrears, payable for the period from 1997-98 to 2006-2007.

5. According to the petitioner, it is not known as to how such a notice could be issued to the occupier, when the corporation knows the residential address of the petitioner. In the said notice dated 18.9.2006, the Corporation has directed the occupier that the abovesaid amount has to be remitted on or before 24.9.2006, failing which, distraint proceedings would be initiated and water connection would be disconnected.

6. On the above pleadings and inviting the attention of this Court to Schedule 4 to Taxation and Finance Rules and in particular 9-A(1) of the Rules Mr. K. Srinivasan, Learned senior counsel submitted that whenever there is an enhancement in the assessment of property tax payable for the half year commencing from 1.10.1987, the owner or occupier of the property concerned, has to be given a special notice about the enhancement of the property tax payable by such owner/occupier and in the case on hand, no such notice has been issued, either to the owner or the occupier.

7. He further submitted that before issuing a notice of demand, a proper assessment of property ought to have been made and that the owner or the occupier, as the case may be, has to be put on notice, as to how and what manner tax has been revised and in such circumstances, had there been a special notice, the owner or occupier, as the case would have submitted his/her objections to the enhancement of property tax. Bringing it to the notice of this Court, a decision