Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs The Commissioner on 6 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to
181, 192, 206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to 181, 192,
206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.128 to 135, 159, 345, 415, 418 to 420, 444, 531, 651,
653 & 654, 975 to 981, 1051, 1088 & 1089, 1090 & 1091, 1523, 1576, 1683,
1684, 1928 to 1930, 2408 and 4862 of 2018 respectively
W.A.(MD)No.14 of 2018:
The Correspondent,
St. John's Matric Higher Secondary School,
Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016. ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Anna Maligai, Alagar Kovil Road,
Thallakulam,
Madurai – 625 002.
2.The Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Collector,
Madurai Corporation,
Western Zone, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Revenue Officer,
Madurai Corporation,
Western Zone, Madurai. ... Respondents/Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to
181, 192, 206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12240 of 2016, dated 21.11.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.Ragatheesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali
Standing Counsel
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.These Writ Petitions have been filed questioning the demand of
property tax.
3.An identical issue was considered by us in W.P.(MD) No.1026 of
2018 dated 06.07.2021 in the case of Sri.Lalitha Vidyashram Matric School
vs. The Commissioner,Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli and we
dismissed the appeal filed by the School. The said judgment reads as follows:-
“Heard Mr.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to
181, 192, 206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
2.This Writ Appeal by the Writ Petitioner is directed
against the order and direction issued in W.P.(MD) No.15784 of
2016, which was disposed by a common order dated 21.11.2017,
along with batch of cases.
3.We need not labour much to decide the issue on hand
as the larger relief sought for by the other institution for issuance of
a declaration in W.P.(MD) No.362 of 2019, to declare the Tamil
Nadu Municipal Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 as ultra
vires and null and void, was rejected by the Hon'ble First Bench of
this Court in the Correspondent, St.Joachim's Matriculation
School v. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply and
three others, wherein also the Tirunelveli Corporation was the
second respondent, and the Writ petition was partly allowed in
terms of the judgment of the Division Bench, dated 13.09.2019. So
far as retrospective application of the increase in property tax is
concerned, demanding of property tax retrospectively from
01.10.2017 alone was set aside. That apart, the validity of the
amended provision has been upheld in the case of Monfort
Academy Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The
Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department, Chennai and others in W.P.No.18008 of
2018 etc., dated 13.09.2019. Therefore, the amended act having
been upheld, the relief sought for by the petitioner to quash the
recovery of property tax cannot be sustained in terms of the
amended statute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to
181, 192, 206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
4.So far as the claim for grant of exemption is concerned,
it goes without saying that no individual has vested right to seek
for exemption and if there was a claim that they will fall within the
relevant provisions of the Act, whereby they are entitled to grant of
exemption, it is for them to independently seek for appropriate
direction. In fact, the learned Single Bench has granted such
liberty to seek exemption. However, the provisions of the amended
act having been upheld, it may be a difficult task for the appellant
to claim exemption. Moreover, they are fee levying institution and
not engaged in charitable purposes. Thus, we are of the view that
the impugned order would not call for any interference.
5.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed in view of
the order aforesaid. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ”
4.In the light of the above order, these Writ Appeals stand dismissed
with similar observations made in W.A.(MD).No.1026 of 2018. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes/No 06.07.2021
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to
181, 192, 206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to
181, 192, 206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD)Nos.14 to 21, 25, 74, 86 to 89, 91, 106, 123, 125, 175 to 181, 192,
206, 207, 255, 267, 279, 280, 308 to 310, 389, 813 of 2018
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
