Sanjai Gupta vs The Commissioner and The Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai

H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—Heard Mr. K.V. Babu, learned counsel in support of this Appeal. Mr. L.N. Praghasam, learned counsel appears for the respondent Municipal Corporation of Chennai. This Appeal arises out of an interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4237 of 2009. By consent of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken in the cause list of the Division Bench. Both the counsel are heard.

The submission of Mr. K.V. Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner is that the Municipal Corporation sent a notice dated 25.4.2007 to the appellant asking him to show cause as to why the property tax should not be revised in the manner indicated in that notice. The notice was supposed to be replied within 15 days. The appellant received that notice on 16.6.2007 and sent a reply to the same on 23.6.2007 pointing out amongst others that there was no alteration or addition in any manner in the building in which the appellant was running a lodging house. That apart, the grievance in the Writ Petition is that without deciding the objections, a subsequent order/notice dated 28.1.2009 has been issued calling upon the appellant/petitioner to pay the balance amount, as per the calculation of the respondents, to the tune of Rs. 20,69,393/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the Writ Petition has been filed, wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs for granting a stay.

Mr. K.V. Babu, learned counsel submits that the demand notice, dated 28.1.2009 is not based on any order passed by the Commissioner and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge, asking the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs for granting a stay, is unjustified.

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.

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 circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The demand notice dated 28.1.2009, which is impugned in the Writ Petition is also set aside. The Writ Appeal as well as Writ Petition are allowed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.