SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Asha Nivas Social Service Centre, Represented by its President - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.5182 of 2020 and W.P.No.20635 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.6122 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.21900 of 2021
Decided On : 02-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.C. Chandrasekar for Mr. R. Ravichandar.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader, Mr. A.S. Ragul Adhithya for Mrs. P.T. Ramadevi, Mr. N. Paul Sunder Singh.

Tax exemption under Section 101(b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act requires qualifying as a 'Choultry', defined as a lodging for travelers, which the petitioner’s hostel does not meet.

Headnote:(A) Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 - Section 101(b) - Exemption from property tax - Petitioner sought exemption for a Working Women Hostel claiming it qualifies as a 'Choultry' under the Act - Court held the hostel does not meet the definition of 'Choultry' as it does not provide accommodation for travelers, affirming the denial of tax exemption. (Paras 10, 27, 28)

(B) Legal interpretation of 'Choultry' - The definition incorporates the idea of a resting place for travelers, distinguishing it from charitable establishments that do not provide such accommodation. (Paras 15, 26)

(C) Right to appeal - Denial of exemption and the strict interpretation of tax-related statutes was emphasized, highlighting reliance on clear statutory language. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Two writ petitions were filed by a social service center challenging the denial of tax exemption for property tax and water charges under the relevant municipal acts, with claims based on the hostel’s charitable nature and financial constraints.

Findings of Court:
The claim for exemption under the definition of 'Choultry' was rejected, suggesting instead that the petitioner apply for special exemption under a different provision which accommodates charitable institutions.

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s hostel qualifies as a 'Choultry' under the Act for exemption from property taxes.

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'Choultry' mandates that it must serve as a shelter for travelers for exemption eligibility; merely operating as a hostel does not suffice for tax exemption.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to property tax exemption (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. petitioner's claim for charitable property tax exemption (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. government's denial of exemption claims (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. strict interpretation of tax exemption laws (Para 18 , 19)
5. definition and meaning of 'choultry' (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. choultry definition's application to the petitioner's case (Para 25 , 26)
7. final decision on dismissal of petitions (Para 28)
8. alternate exemption under section 101 (c) (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

ORDER :

By this Common Order, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of.

2. In W.P.No.5182 of 2020, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order in Z.O.8.R.D.C.No.Assr.106/2431/2019 dated 04.12.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent namely the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.

3. By the Impugned Order dated 04.12.2019, the 3rd respondent in the said Writ Petition has rejected the request of the petitioner for exemption from payment of property tax under Section 101 (b) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

4. The aforesaid Impugned Order has been passed pursuant to an earlier Order passed by this Court on 19.08.2016 in W.P.No.26341 of 2011.

5. The said Writ Petition was earlier filed by the petitioner herein. The Court after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, had observed as under in its order dated 19.08.2016:-

“6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusing the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner seeks for exemption from the provisions of the Act and they seek to bring the nature of the activities within the ambit of anyone of the clauses mentioned in section 101 of the CCMC Act, then they should make a specific request/application in that regard. If such application is filed, then the respondent Corporation can examine as regards the nature of the activities done by the petitioner and whether no rent is charged for occupation of the building and if rent is charged whether it is exclusively used for charitable purposes. In fact, after the impugned demand notice was issued, the petitioner has filed their objections / representation, which is also pending consideration before the respondent Corporation.

7. In the light of the above, while directing the respondent Corporation to keep the impugned proceedings in abeyance, there will be a direction to the petitioner to submit an application seeking for exemption in terms of Section 101 of the CCMC Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and along with the application, the petitioner also should enclose all the relevant materials to justify their claim. On receipt of such application, the respondent Corporation shall nominate the Senior Officer for inspection of the premises which should be done after notice to the petitioner. On completion of inspection, a report be submitted to the Commissioner and after hearing the petitioner in person, the respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision in the application for grant of exemption. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date on which the application for exemption is made in terms of the above directions.

8. In fine, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.”

6. In W.P.No.20635 of 2021, the same petitioner has challenged the Impugned Demand Notice bearing Ref.CMC.No.05/073/1441/000001-08/106/03274/000 dated 03.08.2021 issued by the respondents Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), demanding taxes and charges from the petitioner for the period between 1st half of 2018 and 1st half of 2021 amounting to a sum of Rs.9,49,708/-.

7. The challenge to the respective demands both under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and the Chennai Metropolitan Water S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top