The main legal point established is that orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 20(6) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 are final, and the assumption of powers by the DRO to reassess properties exempted by the Tribunal's order was contrary to law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Impugned Order i.e. Notice of Demand dt. 02.12.2019 in Form 6 issued by the 3rd Respondents and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner is the Christian Medical College Vellore Association. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to a demand of property tax dated 02.12.2019 issued in Form 6 by the third respondent, being the Urban Land Tax Officer, Vellore calling for remittances of arrears of land tax in respect of properties at RNR Nos.280 to 306. The annexure to the order sets out 27 RNR Nos./TS Nos., and arrives at a total sum of Rs.1,67,01,071/- as the demand to be paid.

2. By way of brief background, I may state that the petitioner has been claiming exemption from payment of Urban Land Tax (ULT) in terms of Section 29(h) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (in short 'Act'), as, according to it, the land owned by the petitioner is utilised/deployed solely for purposes in connection with education. In the year 1994, it had been in receipt of a demand of ULT and after remitting the demand under protest, had filed an appeal challenging the demand in terms of Section 20 of the Act before the Urban Land Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal'), then, the Sub-Judge, Vellore.

3. A detailed order had come to be passed by the Sub-Judge on 28.02.1997 holding that the petitioner was entitled to exemption, as it was an educational institution. A refund of the amount paid under protest had been ordered. It appears that thereafter, proceedings had been initiated by the District Revenue Officer (DRO), who is not arrayed as respondent in the Writ petition, in the year 2002.

4. The legal flaw committed by the respondents has been occasioned at that stage. G.O.Ms.No.1122 had been issued on 28.11.2007 and the abstract of the order states that the Act stood amended under Amendment Act 26 of 1997, as per which, all ULT matters had been entrusted to the respective DROs. The G.O. is dated 28.11.1997 and thus the assumption of powers by the respective DROs can only be with effect from 28.11.1997.

5. However, in the instant case, the DRO appears to have issued a notice on the erroneous legal premise that he has to undertake the exercise of assessing the properties of the petitioner to ULT. It appears to have missed his attention that such an exercise had already been initiated earlier and had culminated by order passed by the Tribunal as early as on 28.02.1997. The petitioner participated in the proceedings bringing to the knowledge of the DRO the fact that assessments had already been initiated and concluded in respect of its properties.

6. Notwithstanding this, an order came to be passed by the DRO on 29.09.2009 revising the entirety of the assessment and exempting only 8 out of 27 properties owned by the petitioner from levy of ULT. This order has, admittedly, not been served upon the petitioner and has been produced by the respondent upon summoning of the files by this Court.

7. A perusal of the original files produced by the authorities reveal that this order has been passed and is part of the records, but has not been served upon the petitioner. To my mind, this order has no force in law and is entirely non-est in the light of order dated 28.02.1998 that has become final.

8. The assumption of jurisdiction by the DRO to the ULT assessments of the properties of the petitioner in the year 2002 is thus contrary to law, insofar as the provisions of Section 20(6) of the Act, as it stood then, state that all orders passed by the Tribunal shall be final.

9. Section 20 (6) is extracted below:

20. Appeal to the Tribunal against orders of Assistant Commissioner.-

.......

(6) Any order passed by the Tribunal under this section shall be final.

10. Sub-section (6) of Section 20 has been amended vide Amendment Act 26 of 1997, simultaneous with assumption of power by the DRO. Thus, all o