Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 210 (MAD)

D. N. Udani v. Revenue Officer

2000-02-18

A.RAMAN

body2000
Judgment : 1. Challenging the notice of demand issued by the second respondent to the petitioner’s tenant, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The notice is given to the occupier. The Manager, Indian Bank, Villivakkam, Chennai-49, calling upon them to pay the arrears of property tax of a sum of Rs. 1,02,050 in respect of property at No. 1, Thirumangalam Road, Villivakkam, Chennai-49. It is contended that the Bank is now occupying an area of 4000 sq.ft. and the other portions are vacant. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court has held in Sudama Devi v. Commissioner, AIR 1984 SC 653 that collection of tax shall not be stayed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The petitioner has applied for demolition and reconstruction. The necessary demolition charges have also been paid by the petitioner on 10.7.1996. He has also informed the authorities by letters dated 20.9.1996 and 26.2.1997 that demolition has been carried out and therefore, the levy of house tax in respect of the property has to be revised or cancelled. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the portion occupied by the Bank is a semi permanent structure and that the Bank has now sent notice for vacating the premises. According to the petitioner that inspite of repeated letters of the petitioner, the authorities concerned have not taken any step under Section 107 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 which provides for a notice for demolition and reconstruction of the building and on such notice being given, the owner of the building was be entitle d to a remission of the whole of the tax or enhanced tax, as the case may be, payable in respect of the building. The petitioner has obtained permission from the Corporation for demolition and has also paid the necessary demolition charges. On this permission, the petitioner has demolished other portion. He cannot demolish the portion occupied by the bank as a tenant, since the bank did not vacate, obviously he could not pull down the building as well. When repeated request and letters are written by the petitioner, a duty is cast upon the respondents to consider those requests and pass orders. Without considering the same, the authorities have proceeded to issue the occupier’s notice. This in the circumstances, in my opinion is, improper and illegal. 4. When repeated request and letters are written by the petitioner, a duty is cast upon the respondents to consider those requests and pass orders. Without considering the same, the authorities have proceeded to issue the occupier’s notice. This in the circumstances, in my opinion is, improper and illegal. 4. In the counter it is stated that the remedy of the petitioner is to ask for proportionate reduction of tax. Even assuming so, when the petitioner has been repeatedly requesting for remission of tax and addressed letters to the Corporation authorities then the authorities are bound to consider the same and give him necessary relief, and reduce the tax proportionately, if he is entitled to under law. Even if he is entitled remission of the whole tax on the ground of demolition of the building, that ought to have been considered by the corporation authorities. They cannot simply issue occupier’s notice, without reference to the fact that the permission to the petitioner for demolition was granted and thus demolition of a part of the building has been done and that the petitioner has been repeatedly asking for remission of tax, which he is entitled to under Section 107 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, in such circumstances, I am of the view that the occupier’s notice issued by the corporation is bad in law, since it has been issued without considering the several representations made by the petitioner, especially under Section 107 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned proceedings. However a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law and after affording opportunity to the petitioner. If the authorities are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to remission of tax either in whole or in part for any reason, they are entitled to proceed further, after giving due notice. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in the connected WMP.