Kamak Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)No.10951 of 2023 KAMAK Matriculation Higher Secondary School, represented by its Secretary, Mr.R.Ramesh Kamak, S/o.A.Rabindran Kamak, No.4/1/1, Ettayapuram Road, Melur, Tuticorin District.
... Petitioner vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
1/8
2.The Tuticorin Corporation, represented by the Commissioner, Tuticorin District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned demand notice in Assessment No.138/003/901405, dated 29.09.2022, on the file of the respondent no.2 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondent no.2 to refund the excess amount collected arbitrarily as property tax for the petitioner's school building at No.4/1/1, Ettayapuram Road, Melur, Tuticorin Distict. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar for M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates For R1 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.N.Anandakumar ***** 2/8
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned demand notice in Assessment No.138/003/901405, dated 29.09.2022, on the file of the respondent no.2 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondent no.2 to refund the excess amount collected arbitrarily as property tax for the petitioner's school building at No.4/1/1, Ettayapuram Road, Melur, Tuticorin District.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the school is an unaided School having 450 students. The respondents have issued demand notice, dated 19.11.2013. The said demand notice was challenged in W.P. (MD) No. 4235 of 2014, seeking exemption for educational institutions. This Court directed the respondents to consider and pass orders. 3/8
3. The contention of the petitioner is that for the earlier period, the same issue was raised before the respondents and the Director of Municipal Administration passed the order, dated 07.08.2009, granting exemption from paying property tax from 01.04.1996. The respondents issued a demand notice for the assessment years from 2013 to 2018 and demanded Rs.92,622/-. When the school was has having exemption the respondent without issuing proper notice, forced the petitioner to pay the amount and threatened to discontinue the water supply in lieu of failure to pay the amount of property tax for the years from 2018.
4. Moreover for the year 2018-2019, the tax is only Rs.31,324/- and the petitioner is not aggrieved by the said amount. However, suddenly, for the assessment year 2019-2020, the respondents arbitrarily increased the amount and demanded Rs.2,32,304/-, i.e., an increase of 4/8
700% and the petitioner was forced to pay the same under threat. Again, the respondents have imposed exorbitant tax of Rs.4,60,300/- for the year 2022-2023. Since the petitioner has to run the school, the petitioner has remitted the amount under protest. After paying the amount, the petitioner has approached this Court raising various objections for the steep increase in the rates. The respondents without considering the same is taking steps to demand property tax for the next assessment year and the petitioner is serious prejudice by the same. Hence, the petitioner prayed to direct the respondents to reconsider the issue based on the objections raised by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner further submitted that the school is having buildings and playground as well. The area where playground is situated cannot be considered on par with the building. Therefore, it has to be 5/8
assessed under vacant site and impose vacant site tax. The petitioner further submitted that the respondents had not surveyed the school building and vacant space separately.
6. After hearing the arguments of the petitioner this Court is convinced that the property tax was imposed without proper survey and measurement of the buildings and the vacant site, hence the impugned order is quashed. Moreover, when there was an exemption granted in the year 2009, the respondents ought to have issued fresh notice and after hearing the objections the property tax ought to be imposed. Therefore, the respondents are directed to survey the buildings as well as the vacant site. The buildings shall be imposed with property tax and the playground shall be imposed vacant site tax. The petitioner is permitted to submit objections to the respondents within a period of two weeks 6/8
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of two months thereafter. Before passing the orders, the petitioner shall be granted personal hearing as well.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 04.07.2023 Internet : Yes (2/2) NCC : Yes / No Tmg To Secretary to the Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
7/8
S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg 04.07.2023 (2/2) 8/8