M/S.Kurios Finvest Llp vs The Deputy Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 15930 Mad

                                                                      WA.Nos.1864 & 1865 of 2021



                                       In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

                                                  Dated : 05.8.2021

                                                       Coram :

                                     The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

                                                         and

                              The Honouragle Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                      Writ Appeal Nos.1864 and 1865 of 2021 &
                                   CMP.Nos.11880, 11882, 11883 and 11885 of 2021


                     M/s.Kurios Finvest LLP, Chennai-6
                     rep.by its Designated Partner
                     Mrs.Renuka Kumar                                        ...Appellant in
                                                                             both appeals
                                                     Vs
                     The Deputy Collector, Chennai
                     Metropolitan Water Supply &
                     Sewerage Board, No.1, T.S.Krishna
                     Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai-37                             ...Respondent in

WA.No.1864/2021

The Ambattur Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Ambattur, Chennai ...Respondent in WA.No.1865/2021

APPEALS under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

orders both dated 06.7.2021 made respectively in W.P.Nos.6349 of

2017 and 30352 of 2015.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, SC for Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy

For Respondent in WA.No.1864 of 2021 : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, GA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

WA.Nos.1864 & 1865 of 2021

For Respondent in WA.No.1865 of 2021 : Ms.Karthika Ashok

COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J)

We have heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel on

record for the appellant, Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Government

Advocate accepting notice for the respondent in the first writ appeal

and Ms.Karthika Ashok, learned Standing Counsel accepting notice for

the respondent in the second writ appeal namely Ambattur Municipality

since the area in question has now fallen within the jurisdiction of the

Chennai Corporation.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.7.2021

passed in W.P.No.30352 of 2015, by which, the appellant challenged

the demand notice dated 20.10.2010 issued by the respondent –

Municipality calling upon them to pay property tax. However, the

learned Single Judge, by the relevant impugned order, directed the

appellant to approach the Taxation Appeal Tribunal.

3. The appellant is also aggrieved by another order of the same

date passed in W.P.No.6349 of 2017, by which, the appellant

challenged the demand notice dated 20.2.2017 issued by the

respondent – Municipality calling upon them to pay water and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

WA.Nos.1864 & 1865 of 2021

sewerage tax. However, the learned Single Judge, by the relevant

impugned order, disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the

property tax assessment is the basis for determination of water tax

and in W.P.No.30352 of 2012, by order dated 06.7.2021, the appellant

was already directed to approach the Taxation Appeal Tribunal for

determination of property tax.

4. The dispute raised in the said writ petitions was that the

building was incomplete in the year 2008, that the appellant has been

given a partial completion certificate by the Chennai Metropolitan

Development Authority only on 06.12.2018 and that therefore, the

property tax could not have been fixed and demanded from 2008.

5. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent – Municipality in the second writ appeal submits that it is

the appellant, which had written to the Ambattur Municipality to

inspect their property for the purpose of assessing the property to tax,

pursuant to which, the property was inspected and half yearly tax was

fixed at Rs.22,57,673/- with effect from 01.10.2008.

6. The contention of the appellant herein both before us as well

as before the learned Single Judge is that when the building is yet to

be completed, the property tax could not have been determined and

demanded from October 2008.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

WA.Nos.1864 & 1865 of 2021

7. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant

should invoke the remedy available under the Statute and observed

that the Taxation Appeal Tribunal could examine the factual position

and then come to a conclusion as to whether the grounds raised by the

appellant were justifiable or not.

8. After elaborately hearing the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant herein, we are of the view that the order

and directions issued by the learned Single Judge would not call for

any interference. Admittedly, the grounds raised by the appellant

herein both before us as well as in the writ petitions are all factual. It

is for the appellant herein to prove that the building was not fully

completed in the year 2008 and it will not be possible for a Writ Court

to examine such a disputed question of fact based on facts. Therefore,

we find that the order and directions issued by the learned Single

Judge directing the appellant herein to approach the Taxation Appeal

Tribunal is just and proper.

9. For all the above reasons, the above writ appeals are

dismissed and the order and directions issued in the said writ petitions

stand confirmed. The appellant herein is directed to approach the

Taxation Appeal Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a

copy of this common judgment. If the appellant herein does so, the

Taxation Appeal Tribunal shall entertain the appeal without reference

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

WA.Nos.1864 & 1865 of 2021

to the period of limitation and take a decision on merits and in

accordance with law. It is made clear that while dealing with the

appeal petition, the Taxation Appeal Tribunal shall not be, in any

manner, influenced by any observations made by the learned Single

Judge or any observations contained in this common judgment. It goes

without saying that all the statutory conditions to be complied with by

the appellant herein to prefer the appeal before the Taxation Appeal

Tribunal shall be complied with and the only protection we have

granted is with regard to the period of limitation alone. So far as water

and sewerage tax is concerned, the determination of property tax will

have a bearing on the same and it shall also abide by the orders that

may be passed by the Taxation Appeal Tribunal in the appeal directed

to be filed by the appellant herein. No costs. Consequently, the

connected CMPs are also dismissed.

05.8.2021 To

1.The Deputy Collector, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, No.1, T.S.Krishna Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai-37

2.The Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality, Ambattur, Chennai

RS

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

WA.Nos.1864 & 1865 of 2021

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J

RS

WA.Nos.1864 and 1865 of 2021 & CMP.Nos.11880, 11882, 11883 and 11885 of 2021

05.8.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/