Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J
A.Mohamed Abdul Kader Jailani – Appellant
Versus
Corporation Commissioner Erode Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges tax notice; prior representations ignored. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. provisional deposit of rs.50,000/- accepted. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. consider representations with hearing; petition disposed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
2. The Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission itself. No final determination has been made at this stage.
3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Final Notice dated 06.11.2025 in Assessment No.056/006/902639, seeking recovery of Rs.2,06,474/- as arrears of property tax for the Assessment Years 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has already submitted representation dated 23.03.2025 and 26.07.2025 for property tax assessment, which have not been acted upon by the Respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, to establish bona-fides, the Petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as a condition for proper determination of property tax payable by the Petitioner for the temporary roof put up.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent has no
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
