Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 1136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Ayanavaram Vigneswara Recreation Centre, Rep. by its Secretary - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 31057 of 2017
Decided On : 11-06-2021
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. Saravanavel.
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Inbanathan, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
Headnote:
Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 - Section 45(1) - Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 - Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981 - Rule 17-B - Seeking to demand - Notice - Petitioner has challenged impugned demand notice of second respondent seeking to demand a differential privilege fee of amount from the petitioner demand proceeds on premises that City Corporation was expanded by a notification G.O.Ms Municipal Administration and Water Supply - impugned demand is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that aforesaid notification vide G.O.Ms Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) was issued for a limited purpose to delineate the electoral constituencies for election of the councillors and that the said notification did not permit the respondents herein to alter the revenue divisions for collection of privilege fee from the petitioner by treating the petitioner's recreation/club within Chennai Revenue District - Held, Approximately revenue villages from, District and were merged with the Chennai city. Till then City had only approximately about villages - About villages were grouped under 3 revenue zones-North Central Chennai and South Chennai vide G.O.Ms Revenue and Disaster Management, Revenue Administration Wing for Revenue Administration – Jurisdiction – Expansion of Revenue District - Thus, what is evident is that the petitioner's club situated in within District merged with the Chennai Revenue District Zone II of the Corporation only in vide G.O.Ms Revenue and Disaster Management, Revenue Administration Wing - It is consequent to above notification Revenue Villages of Districts merged with District - Therefore there is no legal basis on which impugned demand can be sustained - Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned demand notice dated 27.09.2017 of the second respondent seeking to demand a differential privilege fee of Rs.16,00,000/- from the petitioner for the period between 2014-2015 and 2017-2018.
2. The demand proceeds on the premises that the Chennai City Corporation was expanded by a notification G.O.Ms.No.97, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election), dated 19.07.2011 under Section 45(1) of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and since there was a short payment and collection of privilege fee from the petitioner for the aforesaid period, the petitioner was liable to pay same.
3. The impugned demand is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the aforesaid notification vide G.O.Ms.No.97, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election), dated 19.07.2011 was issued for a limited purpose to delineate the electoral constituencies for election of the councillors and that the said notification did not permit the respondents herein to alter the revenue divisions for collection of the privilege fee from the petitioner by treating the petitioner's recreation/club within Chennai Revenue District.
4. The impugned demand notice relies on the G.O.Ms.No.23, Home, Prohibition & Excise (VIII) Department, dated 10.04.2013, as per which, the privilege fee of Rs.10,00,000/- was fixed for Chennai City and Rs.6,00,000/- for other areas by amended Rule 17(b)(ii)(II) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981.
5. Rule 17(b)(ii) after the amendment, i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2012, reads as under:-
“The privilege and the licence in Form F.L.2 shall be issued by the Commissioner on payment of an annual privilege fee of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) for Chennai City and Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) for the other areas, a licence fee of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only and an application fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) on an application made in Form F.A. 1-2 by the Honorary Secretary of club concerned.”
6. It is submitted that the petitioner's club came within the jurisdiction of the third respondent (District Collector, Thiruvallur) and therefore the petitioner had correctly paid the privilege fee of Rs.6,00,000/- vide G.O.Ms.No.27, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VIII) Department, dated 26.06.2012 read with G.O.Ms.No.23, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VIII) Department, dated 10.04.2013.
7. It is submitted that privilege fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.23, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VIII) Department, dated 10.04.2013, in Form F.L.2 licenses issued by the commissioner for Chennai City was only Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- for other areas. It is submitted that the petitioner's recreation club being situated at Ramapuram Panchayat in theMaduravoyal Taluk fell within the Tiruvallur District and it therefore was within “others area” and not within “Chennai City”.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only in the year 2018, Ramapuram Taluk in the Maduravoyal Taluk, of the Tiruvallur District was merged with the jurisdiction of “Chennai City” for the purpose of collection and levy of privilege fee payable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981.
9. It is submitted that all through the period up to 2018, the petitioner's recreation club fell under “other areas” as per G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 10.04.2013, as has been admitted by the fourth respondent in their counter as well.
10. It is further submitted that the entire demand vide impugned demand notice of the 2nd respondent was on account of the audit objection of the Accountant General and the Government itself had also pointed out that the audit objection was incorrect as G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 19.07.2011 was meant only for delineating the wards for the purpose of election of counc
