Tax assessment must adhere to established legal procedures; failure to follow the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act renders such challenges non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.239 of 1999, dated 11.12.2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai and in A.S.No.24 of 2003, dated 28.11.2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Kulithalai, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

2. Originally, one R.Jayalakshmi as the plaintiff, instituted a suit in O.S.No.239 of 1999, on the file of the trial Court as against the Kulithalai Municipality seeking for the relief of declaration that the increased assessment of property tax as per the notice dated 28.10.1999 is illegal, without jurisdiction, void non-est and unenforceable and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servant and agent from demanding and collecting the property tax in respect of the suit property at the enhanced rate.

3. Pending the Second Appeal, the first respondent/plaintiff died. Hence, the second respondent herein is brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased first respondent/plaintiff.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

5. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to her and the same is situated at Kulithalai Municipal limits. The original annual value for the purpose of assessment for the property tax was Rs.3,822/- and the amount of tax levied on that annual value was Rs. 568/- for half year assessed for the year 1994-95. As per the special notice dated 28.10.1999, the annual value and property tax have been increased to Rs.17,567/- and Rs.2,609/-. The reason for the increase in the notice was stated as 'on the basis of the rent estimated' and it is further stated that Kulithalai Urban Co-operative Bank is functioning in the building and the letter received by the Municipality from the Bank dated 21.07.1999 indicated that the actual rent paid by the Bank for the building is Rs.1,597/- and on that basis alone, the property tax was assessed with effect from 01.10.1999. Further, according to the plaintiff, the said procedure is illegal and the plaintiff did not apply its mind to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1920') and to the rules framed thereunder. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the abovestated relief.

6. The defendant had filed a written statement stating that it is an admitted fact the property belongs to the plaintiff and the same was taxed on the annual value of Rs.3,822/- and the amount of tax was Rs.568/- for the year 1994-95. The annual value for 1994-95 was before revision ie., prior to October 1998. It is also an admitted fact that the annual value as per the special notice dated 28.10.1999 was increased to Rs.17,567/-. Admittedly, the suit property was a rental building and the rent was Rs.1,597/-. The defendant stated that the property tax was levied only on the basis of the above mentioned rent, as per the rules framed by the Government. All procedural aspects were correctly followed by the defendant. The averments made by the plaintiff that the Commissioner did not apply his mind to the provisions of the Act, 1920 and to the Rules are not correct. In fact, the suit property is situated at the heart of Kulithalai Municipality and the annual value may be more than the annual value fixed by the defendant. The provisions of lease and rent control will not be applicable for fixing the property tax. The Municipality has to follow