The central legal point established in the judgment is that there cannot be any demand without an order of assessment and that the petitioner must be given sufficient opportunity of hearing.

1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order, dated 21.10.2010, in and by which the petitioner has been directed to remit a sum of Rs.1,84,41,404/- towards property tax.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he, along with his father and brother are the joint owners of the lands and the buildings, bearing Door Nos.259-B, 260/260-A and 261/A, V.E.Road, Thoothukudi and the said properties were assessed by the respondent, under Assessment Nos.321011, 321287 and 321288, on 01.04.1997, 01.10.1997 and 01.10.1997, respectively. Thereafter, the respondent revised the orders of assessment, by proceedings, dated 30.06.1999. Challenging the said revised orders, the petitioner filed O.S.No.414 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, seeking declaration that the enhancement of tax, with respect to the scheduled buildings, with effect from 1998 – 1999, as per the demand notice, dated 30.06.1999 and the distraint notice, dated 14.10.1999, are illegal and void. The said suit came to be decreed, by a Judgment, dated 09.04.2002, holding that the orders of assessment of property tax were illegal and contrary to law. Challenging the same, no appeal was filed by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice, dated 22.05.2002, alleging that there was an audit objection, regarding the assessment orders, pertaining to the Door Nos.259-B, 260/260-A and 261/A, V.E.Road, Thoothukudi, and directed to show cause as to why the property tax shall not be revised. The petitioner, by way of representation, dated 20.06.2002, submitted his objections. Without considering the said objections, the respondent, by proceedings, dated 22.07.2002, confirmed the property tax determined in the notice, dated 22.05.2002.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, before the Taxation Appellate Committee. By proceedings, dated 12.09.2002, the said appeal came to be rejected. Challenging the said notice, dated 22.05.2002, and also the Original Order, dated 22.07.2002, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.8669 and 8670 and of 2003. By order, dated 10.02.2010, W.P.No.8669 of 2003 came to be allowed, by setting aside the notice, dated 22.05.2002, as confirmed by the order, dated 22.07.2002, remitting the matter back to the respondent, who was directed to pass fresh orders, on merits, after providing due opportunity to the petitioner. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.8669 of 2003, dated 10.02.2010, W.P.No.8670 of 2003 was dismissed, as infructuous.

4. In pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 10.02.2010, the respondent, through his communication, dated 08.06.2010, directed to submit his objections before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal of the Corporation, within a period of fifteen days. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reply, explaining the purport of the order passed by this Court, dated 10.02.2010 and also sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,38,570/-, as per the original assessment order made in the year 1999 and requested to comply with the order passed by this Court, dated 10.02.2010. Subsequently, without prejudice to the above contentions, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondent, by his impugned communication, dated 21.10.2010, informed that the petitioner had not presented the appeal, along with the receipt for payment of entire arrears and further directed to remit the entire dues within a period of three days. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the earlier enhancement was challenged by the petitioner, by way of filing O.S.No.414 of 1999, before the District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, seeking declaration that the enhancement of tax, with respect to the scheduled buildings, with effect from 1998 – 1999, as per the demand notice, dated 30.06.1999 and the distraint notice, dated 14.10.1999, were illega