Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Vani Sekar - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Ambur Municipality - Respondent
S.A.No.967 of 2005
Decided on : 13-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs.V.Srimathi
Headnote:
Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act – Civil Procedure Code - Section 9 – Jurisdiction - Rankings in the trial Court - Sake of convenience - It is found that plaintiff sent a notice through her counsel with reference to above said levy of property tax by defendant Municipality and same had been acknowledged by defendant - It is case of plaintiff that without considering above said representation of plaintiff sent through her lawyer and also in violation of provisions contained in District Municipalities Act defendants had sent a demand notice of property tax to the extent without proper calculations and threatened plaintiff that they would initiate coercive steps to collect same on the failure of the plaintiff to comply with demand and accordingly it is stated that plaintiff has been necessitated to lay suit for appropriate relief – Held, . Furthermore first appellate court is also correct in holding that legal notice sent by plaintiff through her counsel could not be considered as a valid revision preferred by her as provided under Act and when the above said notice has been responded by the defendant municipality by way of a reply and when the legal notice sent by the plaintiff cannot be construed as a proper revision preferred under concerned Act in all parameters it is found that question of defendant municipality determining points raised by plaintiff through her legal notice does not arise. As rightly determined by the first appellate court, the plaintiff should have approached authorities constituted under Act, challenging the levy of property tax as per law, if she is aggrieved over same - Plaintiff’s counsel in support of her contention placed reliance upon decision of the Apex court reported in principles of law outlined in above said decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at the hand - Inasmuch as effective remedies are available under the concerned Act by way of an appeal to the Taxation Committee and further appeal to district court it is seen that civil action challenging enhancement of assessment would not lie and in light of the above position, following the decisions of Apex Court as above referred to court hold that findings of Courts below that civil suit laid by plaintiff is not maintainable are in accordance with law and in accordance with the decisions rendered by the Apex Court as above pointed out and in such view of matter substantial question of law formulated in second appeal is answered against plaintiffs and in favor of defendant – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.106 of 2002, on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court, FTC, Tirupatur, Vellore District reversing the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2001 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambur.
2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.
“(a) Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted, when the statutory authorities are acting beyond the scope of their powers and in violation to the statutory prescriptions?
(b) Whether the court below is right in coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff has to submit her objection personally and not through any agent, when there is a specific provision under Schedule IV Rule 12?
3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.
4. The Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. The plaintiff has come forward with the suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the assessment of property tax determined by the defendant as illegal and void and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction refraining the defendant from collecting the property tax by way of distraint action. It is found that the plaintiff has constructed a cinema theatre and thereupon, the defendant officials had inspected the same and sent a special notice of assessment of property tax by registered post fixing the tax at Rs.88,670/- per year from 01.10.1988 onwards and granted 30 days time to the plaintiff in filing her objection if she is aggrieved over the same. It is found that the plaintiff sent a notice through her counsel with reference to the abovesaid levy of property tax by the defendant Municipality and the same had been acknowledged by the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that without considering the abovesaid representation of the plaintiff sent through her lawyer and also in violation of the provisions contained in the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, the defendants had sent a demand notice of property tax to the extent of Rs.3,05,860/- without proper calculations and threatened the plaintiff that they would initiate coercive steps to collect the same on the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the demand and accordingly it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief.
6. The defendant Municipality contended that the tax was assessed and levied only as per the prevailing Rules and Provisions of the Act and accordingly demand notice was issued to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had not preferred any revision against the demand notice sent by the defendant as per law and the legal notice sent by the plaintiff through her counsel had been properly replied and though the plaintiff had been given sufficient opportunities and time to pay the tax as per the Rules, inasmuch as the plaintiff has failed to pay the same, it is stated that the defendants are correct in taking further action against the plaintiff and accordingly contended that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable and prayed for the dismissal of the same.
7. Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court was pleased to accept the case of the plaintiff and granted the appropriate reliefs in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant preferred the first appeal. The first appellate court holding that the civil suit instituted by the plaintiff against the levy of property tax is not maintainable as well as the plaintiff has not preferred any revision in accordance with law challenging the levy and demand of property tax by the defendant, accordingly proceeded to entertain the appeal preferred by the defendant and thereby set as
