Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated that the property situated in T.S.No.46 comprised in Block No.23 of Erode Town belongs to petitioner Mutt. The petitioner Mutt is managed by Mathathipathis, who are selected by succession, on nomination by the predecessor. The head of the Mutt is at Mulbagal in Kolar District, State of Karnataka. The property belonging to the petitioner Mutt, which has an extent of 4 grounds and 2029 sq.ft, is being utilised for religious and other educational purposes. The Bharathi Vidhya Bhavan School, is located in a portion of the said land and the remaining portion is used for maintaining a Brindhavanam in the name of Swami Raghavendra. The petitioner Mutt is utilising the property only for religious and charitable purposes. However, the second respondent herein had initiated proceedings to assess the property for tax, in the year 1995. On 16. 99, the concerned Village Administrative Officer, along with certain other officials, had attempted to take steps to serve a demand notice on the petitioner Mutt. Therefore, a revision had been filed against the said notice before the first respondent, raising various grounds. 3. It was submitted that the land in question is owned by a religious institution and since it is being used for public worship it is exempted from tax. It was also submitted that the copy of the assessment order was not served on the petitioner Mutt, as per Section 12 of the Tamilnadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. Further, there was no demand, separately for each year, as contemplated under Section 15 of the said Act. The composite demand made by the respondents for the faslis 1401 to 1409 was illegal and unenforceable. However, the first respondent had rejected the representation on the ground that a portion was under the occupation of a School and therefore, the petitioner Mutt is not entitled to the benefit of exemption. In such circumstances, the petitioner Mutt has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mutt had submitted that the petitioner Mutt is entitled for exemption by virtue of Section 29(c) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. 4. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mutt had submitted that the petitioner Mutt is entitled for exemption by virtue of Section 29(c) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. The respondents ought to have seen that the statute exempts the land used by schools, colleges and other educational institutions by virtue of Section 29(h) of the said Act. According to Section 15 of the Act, the respondents are restrained from making block demands for a number of years together. Further, the demand made by the respondents is contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to show that even though the school has been leased out to a third party for running a school in the name of Bharathi Vidhya Bhavan School, the petitioner is not making any profit from the said lease. Further, in the impugned proceedings, dated 35. 1995, passed by the second respondent and 4. 2000, passed by the first respondent, there is no detailed discussion with regard to the reasons for the said respondents not to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the above mentioned aspect has not been dealt with by the respondents in detail. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings, dated 35. 1995, issued by the second respondent and 4. 2000, issued by the first respondent, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for reconsideration, on merits, based on the relevant records that would be submitted on behalf of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner is permitted to place all the necessary records before the second respondent assessing authority, to substantiate the claim that the petitioner is not deriving any income from the building on the land in question to get the necessary exemption, under Section 29(c) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. 8. The petitioner is permitted to place all the necessary records before the second respondent assessing authority, to substantiate the claim that the petitioner is not deriving any income from the building on the land in question to get the necessary exemption, under Section 29(c) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. The petitioner is to submit all the relevant records before the second respondent assessing authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on the submission of the records, the second respondent assessing authority is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.