M. Kaliammal vs Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and Others

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—The writ petitioner challenges the orders enhancing the assessment passed by the Commissioner of Madras, and the

Chairman. Taxation Appeals Tribunal, and also the order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The case of the petitioner is that she owned a building, in respect of which there was an old assessment made somewhere in the year 1982. It

seems that the fresh assessment was made and initially, the Commissioner fixed the rental value at Rs. 55,250/- and the annual value at Rs.

6,03,330/- An appeal came to be filed against this order before the Chairman, Taxation Appeals Committee. The Taxation Appeals Tribunal gave

some relief inasmuch as it brought down the rental value to Rupees 53,250/- and the annual value was reduced to Rs, 5,81,490/-. The Tribunal

observed that the building, in which the total buildup area was 32,400 sq. ft., has a large potential and the earlier assessment of the letting value,

which was at Rs. 17,800/-, was meagre. Therefore, on the basis of the annual letting value, the Taxation Tribunal almost confirmed the order

passed by the Commissioner, but, gave some relief, taking into consideration that the building was 18 years old and further that the building was

used for lodging purpose. The petitioner was not satisfied by this and hence filed an appeal under Rule 15 of Schedule IV of the Madras City

Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The learned principal District Judge has confirmed the order. It is against

these orders, the present writ petition is sought to be filed.

The only point which was argued before me was that the original notice for enhancement was given under Schedule IV, Part I-A, Rule 3-A of

the Act.

The learned Counsel was prompt to point out that Rule 3-A was not on the statute book because on the date when the notice was issued in the

year 1992, i.e. on 9 9-1992, that Rule was already deleted by way of amendment. The learned Counsel therefore says that the original notice itself

is bad in law void and non est. I do not at all, agree. Besides these provisions, the pro-visions of Section 137-B of the Act are also mentioned in

the said notice. Section 137-B is the general power of enhancement of the assessment where the Commissioner is of the opinion that the

assessment is either escaped or inadequate. Once that Section is mentioned in the notice, the mere mention of a provision of Rule 3-A cannot have

the effect of invalidating the notice. What is to be seen is whether an opportunity is properly gives to the concerned petitioner before the exercise of

enhancement of assessment is taken up by the Corporation. It is obvious that the Corporation had given this notice in the old form. But that will not

by itself invalidate the whole proceedings. This is apart from the fact that this question is being raised for the first time before me. It was not raised

either before the Tribunal or before the appellate authority, the principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Therefore that objection by itself

does not support the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner then tried to, argue that the assessment was too high as compared to the previous assessment and it is

almost three times. It carina be forgotten that the previous assessment pertained to a period of early eighties, where as 18 long years have elapsed

since then, The authorities below have considered every possible argument and considering the location of the building, its utility, and the quality of

construction, have come to a correct finding regarding the enhancement.

I do not find any illegality in the order passed. The orders of the lower authorities are confirmed. The writ petition is dismissed No costs.

Consequently WMPs. 29358 and 29359/2000 are dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner then says, that it will be onerous to pay all the arrears at one stroke. It is for her to make suitable

representation to the Corporation in that behalf and that is the only solution which can be said in respect of that argument.