Madras High Court
N.Mohan Gandhi vs The Commissioner on 11 January, 2022
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.8841 of 2016
N.Mohan Gandhi .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner
Salem Municipal Corporation
Hanging Garden
Salem-636 001. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2012
made in C.M.A.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Salem, confirming the judgment dated 10.05.2011 passed in Taxation
Appeal No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal,
Salem Corporation.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi
for Mr.P.Raja
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
For Respondent : Mr.D.Gopal
Government Advocate
ORDER
(The matter is heard through “Video-conferencing”)
Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree
dated 09.10.2012 made in C.M.A.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the
Principal District Court, Salem, confirming the judgment dated
10.05.2011 passed in Taxation Appeal No.16 of 2010 on the file of the
Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Salem Corporation.
2.The petitioner is owner of the property bearing Door
No.272/354, Bazaar street, Salem-1. The respondent assessed the
property tax for the first half of 2008 - 2009 as Rs.18,401/- for the said
property. The petitioner challenged the said assessment before the
Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Salem Corporation, alleged that in column
No.16 of special notice, half yearly tax has been arrived at Rs.1,996/-
only, but in column No.17, it is stated that tax arrived after revision as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
Rs.18,401/-. It is an erroneous fixation of property tax, the same has to be
cancelled as null and void and respondent is not entitled to collect
revised tax based on erred special notice. After hearing the respondent,
the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits holding that error
found in column No.16 is only a typographical error and the same can be
rectified. Against the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.13 of 2011
before the Principal District Court, Salem. The learned Principal District
Judge, Salem, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the
Taxation Appellate Tribunal holding that the order of the Tribunal is
valid as assessment made by the respondent is proper.
3.Against the said judgment and decree dated 09.10.2012 made in
C.M.A.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem,
confirming the judgment dated 10.05.2011 passed in Taxation Appeal
No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Salem
Corporation, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision
Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
the respondent having mentioned in column No.16 the amount payable is
only Rs.1,996/- cannot say that it is only a typographical error. Even if it
is a typographical error, the same can be corrected only after issuing
notice to the petitioner as per the procedure. The tax fixed by the
respondent is not according to the fair rent to be fixed as per the
provision of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The
enhancement of tax from Rs.10,515/- to Rs.18,401/- is contrary to the
law and prayed for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent Corporation contended that the error in column No.16 is only
typographical error. Prior to the year 2008-2009, half yearly tax was
fixed at Rs.10,515/- and the respondent Corporation will not reduce the
tax in the subsequent revision i.e., enhancement is only possible in the
subsequent revision. The Tribunal and the learned Principal District
Judge, Salem, considered that it is only a typographical error and rightly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
rejected the case of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the Civil
Revision Petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the entire
materials on record.
7.From the materials on record, it is seen that property owned by
the petitioner for which property tax has been assessed is a commercial
building. The petitioner was paying half yearly tax at Rs.10,515/- as per
the previous assessment year 1998-1999. After ten years, the property
was assessed for property tax and half yearly tax was fixed at Rs.18,401/-
from the half yearly 2008-2009. The petitioner challenged the same
before the Tribunal as well as by way of appeal before the Principal
District Court, Salem on the ground that in column No.16 of the special
notice, tax payable by the petitioner was mentioned as Rs.1,996/- as per
the worksheet. In view of the same, tax payable by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
mentioned by the respondent as Rs.18,401/- in column No.17 is
erroneous. The said contention is without any merits. It is not in dispute
that from the half year of 1998-1999, tax payable by the petitioner for the
said property was fixed at Rs.10,515/- and the petitioner paid till
reassessment for the year 2008-2009 at Rs.10,515/-. The reassessment is
made only after ten years of earlier assessment. The amount mentioned in
column No.16 as Rs.1,996/- is obviously a typographical error, as on the
date, the tax payable was Rs.10,515/-. It is not the case of the petitioner
that tax was reduced from Rs.10,515/- to Rs.1,996/-. The respondent has
reassessed the tax after ten years for commercial building of the
petitioner from Rs.10,515/- to Rs.18,401/-. The contention of the
petitioner that the respondent did not assess property tax as per the fair
rent contemplated under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, cannot be raised in the present revision for the first
time. The petitioner did not raise this issue before the Tribunal or the
Principal District Court, Salem. The only issue raised by the petitioner
before the Tribunal as well as the Principal District Court, Salem, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
having mentioned in column No.16 as Rs.1,996/- payable as tax, in
column No.17, they cannot fix Rs.18,401/- for half yearly tax. The
Tribunal as well as the Principal District Court, Salem, considered the
entire materials on record and held that amount mentioned in column
No.16 is only a typographical error. There is no error in the said order of
the Tribunal and the judgment of the Principal District Court, Salem,
warranting interference by this Court.
8.For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
11.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
Kj
To
1.The Principal District Judge
Salem.
2.The Taxation Appellate Tribunal
Salem Corporation.
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1638 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.8841 of 2016
11.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
