AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are urban land owners in Survey Nos. 325/1 and 326/3 at Karur. In the present writ petitions the relief sought for is for a declaration declaring that the Urban Land Tax levied by the first respondent/Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms and LR and ULT), Trichirapalli, was illegal and inconsistent with the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, more particularly Sections 14 and 15 of the Act.
The writ petitions are admitted on 18.05.2005. An interim stay was also granted on the same day subject to the condition that the petitioners deposit 25% of the amount in respect of the each of the demand notice. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit till date.
Mr. N. Shanmugaselvam learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the Act contemplates a procedure to be followed in assessing Urban Land Tax and the respondents cannot serve a consolidated demand notice by demanding Urban Land Tax for the Faslis 1401 to 1406 and it is opposed to the provisions of the Act.
In this context the learned Counsel placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in R. Kapanipathi Rao v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai and Ors. reported in 2007 (3) CTC 639. The following passages found in paragraphs 3 to 6 may be extracted usefully:
It is the specific case of the petitioner that without complying with the procedure contemplated u/s 7, notice of demand as contemplated u/s 14 has been issued and such notice was challenged before the revisional authority. However, the revisional authority has rejected the Revision without deciding such aspect.
In this writ petition in spite of service of notice no counter affidavit has been filed denying allegations. From the allegations it is apparent that the notice of demand has been issued without first complying with the other conditions contemplated u/s 9 and 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that even as per Section 15 notice of demand is required to be issued for each year whereas in the present case notice has been given for 9 years. In the absence of any assessment order as contemplated under Sections 11 and 12, notice of demand cannot be sustained.
However, it will be always open to the appropriate authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law and the fact that the writ petition has been allowed will not stand in the way because the notice has been quashed only on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Sections 9, 11 and 12 and not on merit.
If any such fresh proceeding is started, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all his defences in accordance with law.
This Court in an earlier judgment in Pure Drinks (Calcutta) Limited, Madras v. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Anr. reported 1994 W.L.R. 193 made a general reference in paragraph 8, which is as follows:
Nothing had been contemplated under the salient provisions adumbrated under the Act as to the issuance of a notice of demand requiring the assessee to pay the tax assessed under the Act, only after such assessment has become final. But, on the contrary, specific provisions had been made, in the shape of Section 14 to demand urban land tax due, after the determination of the market value and of the urban land tax u/s 10 or 11, the issuance of notice requiring the assessee to pay the same within 15 days from the date of service of notice. When the urban land tax payable by such an assessee is not paid within the expiration of the period specified in the notice, the urban land tax shall be recovered from the assessee as arrears of land revenue, as had been provided for by Sub-section (3) of Section 14.
The said opinion is more of a general in nature whereas the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel in R. Kapanipathi Rao is more appreciable to this Case.
Under these circumstances all the writ petitions stand allowed and the demand notice quashed. The appropriate authority is permitted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. If any such proceedings are initiated it will open to the petitioners to raise all their defense in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.