Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute Rep. by its Principal, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 582, 583, 584, 585, 587, 588, 589 & 590 of 2020 & CMP. Nos. 8221, 8224, 8225, 8227, 8228, 8229, 8230 & 8231 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2020
For the Appellant :Srinath Sridevan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Karthika Ashok, Advocate.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 – Sections 27, 29 – Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 – Section 101 – Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Arrears of property tax – Writ appeals are directed against the separate orders in W.P.Nos.34079, 34080, 34081, 33161, 33162, 33163, 16164 and 16165 of 2007, all dated 11.06.2009, by which the respective writ petition was disposed of by directing the Appellant in each of these writ appeals to pay the amount demanded therein as arrears of property tax within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order without interest or penalty. – In view of the fact that the Appellant in each of the writ appeals is the Gurukul Lutheran Theological College (the GTL College), the Respondents are also common, and the subject matter in all the cases relates to the imposition of property tax on the Appellant, the writ appeals were heard jointly and are disposed of this common judgment. – Held, Principles that can be gleaned from the aforesaid judgments are that unequivocal concessions by a counsel on facts are binding on the client. – On the contrary, concessions on pure questions of law are not binding. – Further, a lawyer has no implied authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such admission helps achieve the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. – When these principles are applied to the facts of this case, it is clear that the lawyer admitted liability without authorisation after making an assertion of entitlement to an exemption in the grounds. – A concession by counsel does not create an estoppel as regards a statutory exemption. – Given that the impugned order of the Writ Court does not discuss the exemption or its applicability, it cannot be concluded that a decision was made that the Appellant is not entitled to an exemption. – Besides, it cannot be concluded that there was a voluntary relinquishment of the claim for exemption so as to constitute a waiver of a statutory right by the Appellant. – As such, these contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant, in this regard, are liable to be accepted. – Claim for exemption under Section 101(c) is required to be established by the person concerned by providing evidence that the buildings were used for educational purposes. – In the present case, it would be necessary for the Appellant to establish that the buildings were used for educational purposes during the relevant period. – It would also be necessary to establish that the Appellant is entitled to an exemption in respect of the buildings that were used as hostels although hostel fees may have been collected. Such determination would have to be made by the Chennai Corporation authorities by examining relevant evidence. – For such purposes, it is necessary that the matter be remanded for determination by the Chennai Corporation. – Impugned order of the learned single Judge in each of the cases and the demand notices are set aside but the matter is remanded to the Chennai Corporation. – Writ Appeals Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(PRAYER IN W.A.No.582 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.34079 of 2007.
W.A.No.583 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.33163 of 2007.
W.A.No.584 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.33162 of 2007.
W.A.No.585 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.33164 of 2007.
W.A.No.587 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.33165 of 2007.
W.A.No.588 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.33161 of 2007.
W.A.No.589 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P.No.34080 of 2007.
W.A.No.590 of 2020: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent to set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 made in W.P. No. 34081 of 2007.)
1. These writ appeals are directed against the separate orders in W.P.Nos.34079, 34080, 34081, 33161, 33162, 33163, 16164 and 16165 of 2007, all dated 11.06.2009, by which the respective writ petition was disposed of by directing the Appellant in each of these writ appeals to pay the amount demanded therein as arrears of property tax within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order without interest or penalty. In view of the fact that the Appellant in each of the writ appeals is the Gurukul Lutheran Theological College (the GTL College), the Respondents are also common, and the subject matter in all the cases relates to the imposition of property tax on the Appellant, the writ appeals were heard jointly and are disposed of this common judgment.
2. The GLT College, the Appellant herein, was established in the year 1927 and from the inception is stated to be engaged in imparting training and education in Christianity, Lutheranism, religion, i.e. theology, and communication. The GLT College was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 18.06.1962. According to the Appellant, the GLT College functions from Door Nos.113/2 to 113/6 and the GLT College boys and girls hostels from Door Nos.114/4 to 114/6, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai - 600 010. From 1962, it is also stated that the above mentioned premises, including the hostel buildings, were not assessed to property tax because it is an educational trust and, therefore, entitled to exemption. This situation changed, for the first time, in September 2007, when notices demanding property tax were issued from Zone-5, Ward 70 under separate Bill Nos for each of the eight door numbers. This demand was in respect of the second half of 1998 – 1999 to the first half of 2007 – 2008. According to the Appellant, the notices of demand were issued without providing an opportunity to the Appellant to object to the retrospective levy of property tax.
3. Therefore, the impugned demand notices were challenged by filing writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the Appellant raised several grounds of challenge. Significantly, one of the grounds of challenge was that buildings, which are used for educational purposes, including hostel buildings attached thereto, are exempted from property tax under Section 101(c) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (the CCMC Act). In addition, the impugned demand was challenged on the basis that it relates to the period extending from the second half of 1998-1999 to the first half of 2007 – 2008, which is a period of about nine years. In spite of the claim being in respect of the arrears for a period of nine years, no prior notice was
