IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J
Parameshwari Thangeshwaran – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Erode Municipal Corporation – Respondent
WP No. 15728 & 15733 of 2026 | WMP Nos. 16953, 16954, 16955 & 16956 of 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding the validity of property tax assessment notices and the authority of the municipal corporation to levy taxes. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. remand of the matter for fresh assessment with an interim condition for deposit of taxes. (Para 8 , 9) |
COMMON ORDER
Mr.Rajamathivanan,, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the Respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent after dispensing with the counter.
3. The Petitioner is before this court against the respective demand notices seeking to demand a sum of Rs.6,21,908/- and Rs.10,58,976/- being the tax due on the commercial complex measuring 13420/- sq.ft and 21,907/- sq.ft respectively in the respective writ petitions.
4. The Petitioner has been hitherto paying tax at Rs.568/- and Rs.648/-
prior to the impugned demand notice. It is noticed that the Petitioner had earlier declared the first mentioned property as the house property and the second mentioned property as the commercial property.
5. Challenge to the impugned proceeding is primarily on the ground that the impugned demand has been made without proper assessment and therefore, they are liable to be quashed being in violation of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1958.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the properties were governed by the provisions of the Erode Municipal Corporation Act, 2008 and that the property was originally assessed to tax under the Panchayat Act, 1994.
7. Learned Standing counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the property came within the purview of the Erode Corporation from the year 2011 and that the Petitioner ought to have paid the correct tax.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the Respondent, I am inclined to remit the case back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order of assessment. The Petitioner shall however deposit 50% of the tax amount determined in the impugned demand notices within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also give a proper reply as to why the amount that has been mentioned in the respective impugned demand notice was high and not payable by the Petitioner.
C.SARAVANAN J.
GV
9. The Respondent, thereafter shall proceed to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with the provisions of Tamilnadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1988 as and in force with effect from 13.04.2023 under Rules made thereunder.
10. These Writ Petitions stand disposed of with the above observations.
No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.