Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
P. Santhosh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation – Respondent
W.M.P(MD)No.10331 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Hemakarthikeyan
For the Respondents: J. Lawrence

Property tax assessment demands must comply with natural justice requirements, including providing an opportunity to be heard; such notices should be treated as provisional until the taxpayer is given adequate details and an opportunity to respond.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a demand notice issued by the local municipal body, arguing that the assessment was conducted without affording a proper opportunity for response, in contravention of the principles of natural justice and the requirements under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to a fair hearing and directed that the impugned notice be treated as a provisional assessment, mandating that the authority provide relevant assessment details and allow the petitioner to submit a reply and supporting documentation before a final decision is reached. The core issues were whether the assessment procedure followed the statutory requirements of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to contest the assessment prior to the issuance of the demand notice. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that procedural fairness, specifically the right to be heard, must be observed even in administrative assessment proceedings to ensure transparency and accountability. The writ petition is allowed, with instructions for the respondent to provide necessary assessment details and for the petitioner to file a subsequent reply, followed by a potential physical inspection if a measurement dispute arises.

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance and the requirement of providing notice in property tax assessments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. remand of assessment process to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 30.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.10331 of 2026 P.Santhosh ... Petitioner Vs.

The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul. ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent herein in his impugned notice dated 07.03.2026 in respect of the petitioners assessment No. 078/006/ 900222 and quash the same and to pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.J.Lawrence Standing Counsel ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned notice dated

07.03.2026. The same is a demand notice in respect of the petitioner's property bearing Assessment No.078/006/900222.

2. Heard M/s.K.Hemakarthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Lawrance, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that they were not given an opportunity, although the assessment was carried out in accordance with Section 86 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that the demand was issued uniformly when the assessment proceedings were undertaken.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the material records of the case.

6. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned notice shall be treated as a provisional assessment.

7. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:-

i. The impugned notice shall be treated as a provisional assessment. ii. Within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the details and the breakup relating to the assessment shall be furnished to the petitioner.

iii.Within a period of four weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall file any additional reply and produce documents in support of their claim.

iv. If there is any dispute regarding the measurement, an inspection shall also be conducted in the presence of the petitioner and thereafter, the authority shall pass appropriate orders in the manner known to law.

v. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASD. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JP. Santhosh – AppellantVersusCommissioner, Dindigul Corporation – RespondentW.M.P(MD)No.10331 of 2026

Property tax assessment demands must comply with natural justice requirements, including providing an opportunity to be heard; such notices should be treated as provisional until the taxpayer is given adequate details and an opportunity to respond.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
P. Santhosh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation – Respondent
W.M.P(MD)No.10331 of 2026