Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3349 (MAD)

T. Navamani v. Commissioner

2017-10-13

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P. Wesley Issac, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s. Karthikaa Ashok, learned Standing Counsel accepting notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. With consent on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is before this court for the second time complaining about the manner in which the property owned by him has been assessed to property tax. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10222 of 2017 dated 04.07.2017, challenging the notice issued in Form No. 7 dated 07.03.2017. The petitioner has submitted that there has been a steep increase in the property tax as the respondent increased the tax from Rs.7,680/- per half year to Rs.1,37,630/- per half year and that too without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his objections. The Court took note of the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and finding that the impugned notice dated 07.03.2017, is in the nature of a pre-assessment notice, the petitioner was directed to submit their objections, with further directions to the officials of the respondent-Corporation to cause an inspection of the building and based on the inspection report to pass final assessment order on merits and in accordance with law. In compliance with the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner has submitted his objections to the Commissioner on 01.08.2017. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's building has been inspected as per the direction. 4. However, I find from the impugned final assessment Form 10 notice dated 20.09.2017 that there is nothing on record to show that inspection was conducted and objections were considered. The final assessment notice in Form 10 is a proforma, which gives the annual value of the building, the half yearly tax payable and the period from which such payment has to be effected. This Form 10 notice does not disclose as to the basis on which the annual value of the building was determined and how the half yearly tax was arrived at. This Form 10 notice should be accompanied by a speaking order as this court directed the petitioner to submit his objections to the proposed increase. This Form 10 notice does not disclose as to the basis on which the annual value of the building was determined and how the half yearly tax was arrived at. This Form 10 notice should be accompanied by a speaking order as this court directed the petitioner to submit his objections to the proposed increase. Unless and until a speaking order, is passed, the assessee will not be in a position to know as to how the respondent has arrived at the annual value of the building and determined the property tax. This having not been done in the instant case, the impugned notice calls for interference. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned notice is set-aside, the respondents are directed to strictly adhere to the directions issued in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.10222 of 2017, dated 04.07.2017, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.