The Executive Officer vs The Karaikudi Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 12219 Mad

                                                                          W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2020

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 23.06.2021

                                                        CORAM:

                               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
                                                         AND
                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI


                                            W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2020
                                                         and
                                      C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3981 & 5877 of 2020


                The Executive Officer,
                Arulmighu Koppudayamman Thirukoil,
                Karaikudi,
                Sivagangai District.                                          : Appellant
                                                          Vs.
                The Karaikudi Municipality,
                Rep. by its Commissioner,
                Karaikudi,
                Sivagangai District.                                          : Respondent



                PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,

                praying to set aside the order dated 05.08.2020, in W.P.(MD)No.17050 of

                2018.

                                        For Appellant     : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
                                        For Respondent     : Mr.P.Mahendran
                                                            Standing Counsel



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

                1/6
                                                                                      W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2020




                                                  JUDGMENT

*************** [Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

We have heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Mahendran, learned Standing

Counsel for the respondent Municipality.

2.This Writ Appeal by the writ petitioner Arulmighu

Koppudayamman Thirukoil is directed against the order dated

05.08.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.17050 of 2018.

3.The said writ petition was filed challenging the final demand

notice dated 19.07.2018, issued by the respondent Karaikudi Municipality

['Municipality', for brevity), revising the vacant land tax in respect of the

land owned by the appellant temple with retrospective effect based upon

the amendment brought about by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws

(Amendment) Act, 2009 and the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third

Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations (Levy of

Property Tax on Vacant Land) Rules, 2009 r/w. the table giving the rates

of assessment.

4.The appellant temple questioned the impugned order on the

ground of violation of principles of natural justice, no notice was issued

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

W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2020

prior to issuing the demand, there was no assessment of property tax

done and straightaway, demand has been issued and apart from that the

respondent Municipality does not have jurisdiction to revise the property

tax retrospectively, based upon an amended law which has not been

subsequently given retrospective effect.

5.The respondent Municipality resisted the prayer sought for in

the writ petition by filing the counter affidavit and referred to Section

117-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, to justify the

retrospective revision of the vacant land tax act. Apart from that they

also referred to other Government Orders and submitted that the

Municipality is required to adopt the table of assessment under the Rules

and sought to justify the demand.

6.The learned Writ Court considered the submissions and found

that the impugned demand was in violation of the principles of natural

justice and being satisfied on the said ground, allowed the writ petition

and quashed the demand, however, gave liberty to the Municipality to

issue fresh notice. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us. At

the time when the appeal was entertained, an interim order was passed

dated 26.08.2020, granting stay of the retrospective demand with a

direction to the appellant temple to continue to pay the revised tax

prospectively.

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

W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2020

7.We are informed by the respondent Municipality that the

appellant has been complying with the said order and has been paying

the enhanced vacant land tax, prospectively. The moot question would be

whether the Municipality can fall back on Section 117-A & 345 to justify

their retrospective demand. The issue would be whether the 2009 Rules

could operate retrospectively and whether the table under the Rules

gives a discretion to the assessing authority to assess the property tax at

a minimum and maximum rate, can the respondent Municipality issue a

demand without undertaking a process of assessment.

8.In our considered view, the issue relating to jurisdiction should

be decided after opportunity to the appellant and only then, the appellant

will have an opportunity to challenge the stand taken by the respondent

Municipality but seek to justify their power of retrospective revision.

Since, the learned Single Bench has granted liberty to issue a fresh

notice, we are of the view that the said direction can be slightly modified,

so that not only the interest of the appellant temple is protected but the

interest of the respondent Municipality is also safeguarded.

9.For the above reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part and

the order and direction issued by the learned Single Bench is modified by

directing the respondent Municipality to issue show cause notice to the

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

W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2020

appellant temple, specifically stating as to how they are justified in

invoking their power of retrospective revision of property tax. The

appellant temple is at liberty to submit their objections. Thereafter, the

respondent Municipality, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

Executive Officer of the appellant temple, pass a reasoned order on

merits and in accordance with law. Till final order is passed, the appellant

temple shall continue to pay the vacant land tax in terms of the interim

order passed in this appeal. It goes without saying that remittances made

by the appellant temple with regard to the revised vacant land tax shall

be without prejudice to the rights of the appellant temple since the

demand has been quashed. Therefore, the appellant temple would not

only be entitled to question the retrospective revision but also the

prospective revision. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

                                                         [T.S.S., J.]   &     [S.A.I., J.]
                                                                   23.06.2021
                Index              : Yes / No
                Internet : Yes / No
                MR

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 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)No.633 of 2020

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

AND S.ANANTHI, J.

MR

To The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2020

23.06.2021

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