N. Murugavel and V.M.N. Shunmugasundaram vs The Commissioner of Municipal Administration and The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation

B. Rajendran, J.—Mr. M. Jothi Basu, learned Counsel takes notice for the Respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final

disposal at the admission stage itself.

This writ petition is filed to quash the assessment of property in assessment No. 69696, dated ''nil'' issued to the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.

8,61,800/-followed by the demand notice, dated 19.02.2011 for a sum of Rs. 4,51,886/-for the periods from 2008-2009 II half to 2010-2011 II

half, issued by the second Respondent herein.

According to the Petitioners, originally, tax was assessed at the rate of Rs. 4,249/-per half year. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs. 12,747/-

by issuing provisional demand notice dated 22.03.1999 and thereafter, on 22.07.2003, it was enhanced to Rs. 55,812/-without any notice and the

said assessment notice did not accompany with the audit remarks. The Petitioners challenged the same by way of writ petition and the said

assessment notice was set aside and the Municipal Corporation was directed to reassess the same in accordance with law.

According to the Petitioners, pursuant to the order of this Court, the Municipal Corporation once again enhanced property tax to Rs. 47,567/-

with effect from 2007-2008 II half and issued demand notice on the Petitioners on 15.09.2008 determining the half year tax amount at Rs.

95,134/-. The Petitioners filed objections stating that the assessment of property tax levied by the Respondent Corporation is not legally valid and

liable to be set aside. In the meanwhile, the Respondent Corporation without considering the objection filed by the Petitioners issued a notice

demanding revised tax retrospectively from the year 1998-1999 I half for Rs. 8,61,800/-which was paid by the Petitioners under coercion and

threat by the Respondents to prevent the disconnection of electricity service connection, therefore, the entire amount has been paid and it should

be treated as excess amount which could be adjusted with the second demand amount. But the Petitioner also would contend that insofar as the

payment and demand of the earlier notice from the year 1998-1999 to 2007-2008 for Rs. 8,67,800/-, they filed the appeal/representation to the

Taxation Appellate Tribunal but the same has been presented to the Commissioner and the same is pending by virtue of the appeal dated

29.09.2008. Hence, the present writ petitions.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Corporation brought to the notice of this Court that under Chapter V. of the Madurai City Municipal

Corporation Act as against the levy of the property tax Taxation Appeal Tribunals have been constituted for hearing and disposing of an appeal

preferred by any person who is not satisfied with the assessment order made by the Commissioner under this Act. Inasmuch as the impugned

notices are purely demand notice pertaining to enhanced property tax and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The only remedy is

available to the Petitioners to file an appeal before the appellate authority and writ is not the proper remedy. Further, inasmuch as the Petitioners

themselves admitted in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that they have also preferred an appeal before the Commissioner on

29.09.2008 that an appeal has only to be disposed of. Even for the second demand notice also, the only remedy available to the Petitioners is that

they should prefer a separate appeal before the tribunal.

Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

In this case, a peculiar circumstance arises after the disposal of the earlier writ petition quashing the earlier enhancement. The Respondent once

again assessed the tax more than four times the original assessment. It is also pertinent to point out that the Respondent demanded the enhanced

tax arrears with retrospectively from 1998 to 2010-2011. In the earlier notice, they have demanded right from 1998 to 2010-2011 to the tune of

Rs. 8,61,800/-and admittedly under protest the Petitioner has also paid the entire amount due under protest. It is also further admitted that the

Petitioner though not filed a specific appeal as provided under the Act before the Tribunal, has filed an appeal to the Commissioner pointing out the

defects and the said application or appeal which is filed by the Petitioner dated 22.09.2008 is till date pending. No doubt, as pointed out by the

learned Standing Counsel for Corporation, under Chapter V. of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act only an appeal lies before the

Taxation Appellate Tribunal and there is also a provision that 50% of the amount should be deposited. In this case, since the entire amount has

been deposited though the appeal has been wrongly presented to the Commissioner, the appeal presented on 22.09.2008 may be treated as an

appeal presented before the Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner is directed to place the papers before the Appellate Tribunal for disposal in

accordance with law treating it as an appeal as the condition regarding payment of 50% also is complied with. This will take care insofar as the first

notice for demand of enhanced tax right from the year 1998 to 2010-2011. The Taxation Appellate Tribunal will consider the appeal which is

produced before the Commissioner without questioning of limitation.

Inasmuch as the second notice is concerned, which is a demand for the period commencing from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 has got only

remedy to appeal before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot file writ petition challenging this order. The Petitioner is

only permitted to move the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on

such appeal being filed by the Petitioner the Tribunal shall entertain the appeal in accordance with law and on payment of 50% of the demand

amount in the second notice dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.