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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42514

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vigneswaran C
For the Respondents: Rajamathivanan

When a property tax demand notice is issued without proper assessment or opportunity to be heard, the court may remit the matter to the authority for a fresh assessment subject to the payment of a portion of the disputed tax assessment by the petitioner.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged property tax demand notices issued by the local municipal authority, citing a lack of proper assessment and violation of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1958. The petitioner contended that the tax hike was arbitrary, noting that previous tax payments were significantly lower and based on different property classifications. The respondent argued that the properties fell under the municipal corporation's jurisdiction since 2011 and that the current demands were justified. The core issue was whether the respondent followed a valid assessment process before issuing the demand notices. The court observed that the petitioner was aggrieved by the sudden escalation in tax demands and had not been afforded a proper opportunity to contest the assessment, leading the court to conclude that the matter required a fresh assessment through a transparent process, ensuring compliance with relevant statutory norms. The court set aside the impugned demand notices, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demanded amount within 30 days and provide a formal reply, followed by a fresh assessment by the respondent on its own merits.

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.

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