The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for natural justice and the right to file objections before a final appealable order is passed, as per the provisions of Rule 4(6) of the Taxation Rules under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

Mr. T.C. Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. At request and by consent of both sides, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge Notices No.1:Property Tax General Revision 2018-19 dated 29.09.2018, 26.09.2018 and 26.09.2018 respectively revising the property tax assessments for the first half of 2018-19.

3. This Court has considered a similar challenge in W.P.No.3248 of 2019 dated 04.02.2019 (N.Krishnan V. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu) and has passed orders as follows:

'3. The main contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that no show cause notice has been issued by the respondents prior to the issuance of the impugned notice and that no break up of the amount has been set out in the notice itself. The revision thus is contrary to G.O.(Ms) 73, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department dated 19.07.2018, which provides for a revision upto only 100% of the existing tax.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation states that the impugned document is only a provisional notice and a final demand would be raised after consideration of the objections of the assessee/petitioner.

5. The notice, on the face of it, states 'Within 15 days of receipt of this Notice, appeal if any, may be preferred to the concerned Regional Deputy Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation as per the delegation provided, or else it will be assumed that the Half Yearly Tax is accepted.'

6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjai Gupta V. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai (2009(2)CTC465) has considered a similar case holding that an occasion to file an appeal would arise only after a final order has been passed. The decision of the Bench reads as follows :

'1. ......

2. This Appeal arises out of an interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4237 of 2009. By consent of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken in the cause list of the Division Bench. Both the counsel are heard.

3. The submission of Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner is that the Municipal Corporation sent a notice dated 25.4.2007 to the appellant asking him to show cause as to why the property tax should not be revised in the manner indicated in that notice. The notice was supposed to be replied within 15 days. The appellant received that notice on 16.6.2007 and sent a reply to the same on 23.6.2007 pointing out amongst others that there was no alteration or addition in any manner in the building in which the appellant was running a lodging house. That apart, the grievance in the Writ Petition is that without deciding the objections, a subsequent order/notice dated 28.1.2009 has been issued calling upon the appellant/petitioner to pay the balance amount, as per the calculation of the respondents, to the tune of Rs.20,69,393/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the Writ Petition has been filed, wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the deposit of Rs.11 lakhs for granting a stay.

4. Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel submits that the demand notice, dated 28.1.2009 is not based on any order passed by the Commissioner and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge, asking the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.11 lakhs for granting a stay, is unjustified.

5. Mr.L.N.Praghasam, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that the appellant has a remedy to go to the Taxation Appellate Tribunal under Part V of the Taxation Rules read with Section 138 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

6. In our opinion, this submission is misconceived. The occasion to file an Appeal will arise only after an order is passed and based thereon a demand is made. In the present case, the appellant having filed the objections, they were expected to be decided. Without deciding the same, this levy has been c