Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1452 (MAD)

S. Ramathilagam v. Srivilliputtur Municipality

2003-09-15

V.KANAGARAJ

body2003
Judgment :- The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in STC No.1619 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur and quash the same on averments such as that she is the owner of the house bearing Door No.5/23, N.G.O. Colony, Srivilliputtur; that it is a residential house; that the respondent-Municipality has levied tax at Rs.280/- which was later on enhanced to Rs.423/- during General Revision in the year 1995; that after the death of her husband, out of compulsion, she had to let out the house for non-residential use; that the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police came to be accommodated; that consequently the tax was reassessed based on the non-residential use and thereby the tax was levied at Rs.5,033/-; that later on, after the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was shifted from the petitioner's house on 18.10.1999, a request was made to restore the Original Assessment levying the tax of Rs.423/-. 2. The petitioner would further state that the respondent, having received the representation dated 27.10.1999 besides the reminder sent by the petitioner's counsel, failed to take any step; that ultimately, she had to initiate proceedings against the respondent in O.S.No.116 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Srivilliputtur challenging the continuance of assessment after 18.10.1999; that the said suit was contested by the respondent on untenable grounds; that after having elaborate trial, the said suit was decreed holding that the said assessment is illegal, non-est and unenforceable by judgment and decree dated 30.4.2001; that in the mean time, the respondent arbitrarily, illegally and highhandedly initiated distress proceedings and that resulted in payment of illegal tax of Rs.5,033/- on 31.3.2000; that the said judgment became final and conclusive. 3. 3. The petitioner would further submit that the respondent, however, instead of restoring the original assessment, i.e. levying the tax at Rs.423/-, levied the tax at Rs.1,215/-; that on a revision filed by the petitioner, it was reduced to Rs.1,053/-; that the petitioner has been making representation before the respondent for restoration of the Original Assessment on the admitted ground that the said building is in self occupation of the petitioner and requested to refund the excess amount; that the Commissioner as well as the Revenue Officer demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- each from the petitioner for reduction of tax to the petitioner's house, which was refused by the petitioner; that subsequently, the petitioner brought it to the notice of the concerned officer in Anti-Corruption Department in her representation dated 30.1.2003; that the respondent, instead of taking steps to redress the legitimate grievance of the petitioner, has initiated the impugned proceedings in S.T.C. No.1619 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Srivilliputtur with mala fide intention to harass and abuse the petitioner; that hence, the proceedings in S.T.C. NO.1619 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur has to be quashed. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that it is the action initiated under Section 232 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act for the default made by the petitioner in the payment of tax; that the representation dated 30.4.2000 was presented but without any reply or action and hence the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Srivilliputhur challenging the continuance of assessment after 18.10.1999 and the same was decreed. 5. The learned counsel would then give the details regarding the assessment and the fixation of tax for each assessment year starting from 1991 and all other such proceedings undertaken including filing of the said suit. 6. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality would submit that there is a definite violation and the commission of offence by the petitioner under Schedule IV Rule 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. On such arguments, the learned Government Advocate would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition as devoid of merits. 7. On such arguments, the learned Government Advocate would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition as devoid of merits. 7. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what comes to be known is that for default in payment of the property taxes, the petitioner has been charged under Rule 36(1) of the Schedule IV of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 for the arrears of tax to the tune of Rs.6,380/= for the premises belonging to the petitioner. 8. Regarding the premises belonging to the petitioner and the authority of the Municipality to assess the taxes and the payment to be made by the petitioner are concerned, there is no controversy but the petition is regarding the manner in which the assessment is made year after year and the quantum of assessment made on the part of the officials of the respondent Municipality. 9. On the part of the petitioner, she would come forward to allege that testifying the validity of the assessment made every now and then, she filed the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Srivilliputhur and also obtained a decree. 10. So far as this aspect of filing of the suit in tax matters particularly in collection of taxes is concerned, in SIVABUSHANAM AMMAL vs. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRAS reported in 1995-1-CTC 598, a learned single Judge of this Court, in no uncertain terms, held in the context of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 as follows: "The jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits challenging revision of property tax has been impliedly ousted in view of provisions of the City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 to file appeals before the Taxation Appellate Committee for such relief." Needless to mention that the above proposition squarely and aptly applies to the case in hand. 11. 11. The next judgment relevant for consideration in the case in hand is one delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in SRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI AND OTHERS vs. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 288 wherein the full bench of the Honourable Apex Court assessing the correctness of the assessment of tax, apart from its constitutionality which are for the decision of the authorities, held that a civi suit does not lie and the orders of the authorities are declared to be final. Citing a landmark judgment delivered by His Lordship Justice Hidayatullah, C.J., in DHULABHAI vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ((1968) 3 SCR : AIR 1969 SC 78 ), wherein the principles relating to jurisdiction of civil court in the case of facts and orders taken under special enactment had been well settled in full consideration of several Indian and English cases which have been uniformly followed by the Honourable Apex Court in various later decisions, the last of which being SHIV KUMAR CHADHA vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (1993) 3 SCC 161 , wherein the Honourable Apex Court would ultimately hold: "Applying the above principles, it must be held that the present suit, on the allegations contained in the plaint itself - let alone the findings of the Court - is not maintainable in a civil Court. None of the grounds on which an assessment made under the Karnataka Act can be challenged in a civil Court is even alleged in the plaint, as pointed out hereinbefore. In other words, none of the grounds indicated in Dhulabhai ( AIR 1969 SC 78 ), upon which such an assessment can be questioned is alleged in the plaint. All that is complained of is that the enhancement is excessive. That by itself is not enough. Similarly, the allegation that enhancement is arbitrary or unreasonable is per se not sufficient to override the express statutory bar. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the said suit is not maintainable in civil Court." 12. From the above discussions held in the context of the judgments rendered by the Honourable supreme Court, it is clear that a suit cannot lie before a civil forum in matters of assessment of or collection of taxes by Municipalities. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the said suit is not maintainable in civil Court." 12. From the above discussions held in the context of the judgments rendered by the Honourable supreme Court, it is clear that a suit cannot lie before a civil forum in matters of assessment of or collection of taxes by Municipalities. Therefore, the suit said to have been instituted by the petitioner is not a bar for the Municipal authorities concerned from proceeding against the petitioner for the collection of the arrears in the manner enumerated under the Municipal Act, which is a Special Act. 13. In these circumstances, this Court is not able to find any valid reason or justification to allow the above criminal original petition to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent Municipality in STC.No.1619 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur since no valid or tangible reason exists for such a decision to be taken in favour of the petitioner and it is a case that has to undergo the trial before the trial Court for appreciation of the facts and circumstances and to give a decision accordingly. In result, (i)the above criminal original petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed as such. (ii)However, the petitioner being a lady, her personal attendance before the Court below is dispensed with on all future dates of hearing barring only those occasions such as preliminary questioning, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., delivery of judgment etc. when the trial Court will be at liberty to summon the petitioner in the manner prescribed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is permitted to appear by pleader as per Section 205 Cr.P.C. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.5742 of 2003 is also dismissed.