Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3870 (MAD)

Syed Afsar Zaman v. Commissioner of Corporation

2013-11-08

V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. M. Joseph Thatheus Jerome, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Karthika Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the respondents have enhanced the property tax in respect of petitioner's property without following the procedure established in law and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he also relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2008 (4) L.W. 448 [G.P. Venkatesa Mudaliar vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai] and a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (2) C.T.C. 465 [Sanjai Gupta vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai]. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation of Chennai on the above point. 5. What is challenged in this writ petition is a final warrant notice dated 20.03.2013 under Section 10 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, in and by which the respondent has demanded the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 98,62,278/-. It is also stated in the impugned demand notice that in case of non compliance, the petitioner will be served with summons and the amount would be recovered with costs. 6. It is true that the respondents are empowered to collect the property tax and demand it, in case if there is any default. But, such a demand can be made only after following the due procedure contemplated under law. Though it is incumbent on the part of the owner to pay the property tax in time, it is equally important that his objections be heard before taking a decision to revise the property tax. On a scrutiny of the order and on verification of the records produced, it is seen that the demand has in fact been made without following the due procedure established under law and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. It is also settled legal principle that while taking a decision which would affect the rights of the individual, there must be an opportunity of hearing given to the individual otherwise, it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also settled legal principle that while taking a decision which would affect the rights of the individual, there must be an opportunity of hearing given to the individual otherwise, it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. In the decision cited supra, the Division Bench of this Court has laid down a principle as to how the demand has to be made and what is the procedure to be followed as contemplated under the relevant rule of law. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "5. Mr.L.N. Praghasam, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that the appellant has a remedy to go to the Taxation Appellate Tribunal under Part V of the Taxation Rules read with Section 138 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. 6. In our opinion, this submission is misconceived. The occasion to file an Appeal will arise only after an order is passed and based thereon a demand is made. In the present case, the appellant having filed the objections, they were expected to be decided. Without deciding the same, this levy has been calculated and the balance amount of Rs.20,69,393/-has been demanded." In the case on hand, such things are conspicuously absent and therefore, the impugned demand notice is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration. The respondents shall hear the petitioner, consider his objections and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that if the petitioner had not submitted his objections, he may submit his objections to the enhancement of the property tax forthwith. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no orders as to the costs.