Madras HC Sets Aside Chennai Property-Tax Assessment Over Unanswered Objections, Requires Owner To Pay Half Pending Fresh Decision

In brief

The question

1. Whether the impugned property-tax proceedings were sustainable when the petitioner’s objections were referred to but not addressed with reasons.

The court held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable.

It also directed

The Court set aside the proceedings dated 28 May 2022 and the consequential proceedings dated 21 July 2022.

It remanded the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration, directed that the petitioner be given a personal hearing and that his 2008 and 2019 objections, together with any further objections and documents, be considered.

Fresh orders are to be passed within four weeks of the hearing.

Pending fresh orders, the petitioner must pay 50% of the enhanced tax within four weeks of receiving the order and continue paying that amount.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged proceedings revising his half-yearly property tax to ₹44,415, effective from 1998–99, and a consequential demand notice.

pp. 2–3

He had submitted objections to an earlier proposed revision in 2008 and further objections in 2019.

p. 2, 4

In a 2009 civil suit, the City Civil Court had restrained the authorities from passing a final assessment order without considering his objections.

p. 2, 4

The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to consider those objections and that the consequential notice was issued in his deceased father’s name.

p. 3

The respondents argued that the objections had been considered and that the petitioner should pursue an appeal under Section 100 of the Urban Local Body Act, 1998.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the impugned property-tax proceedings were sustainable when the petitioner’s objections were referred to but not addressed with reasons.

pp. 4–5

ii.2. Whether the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 100 barred the writ petition despite the alleged failure to consider the objections and the civil court’s decree.

p. 5

03Law Applied

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may entertain a writ petition despite an alternative remedy in recognised circumstances, including where proceedings are vitiated by a breach of natural justice.

p. 5

A decision-maker must consider relevant objections and give reasons; an order that does not address them may be unsustainable for failure to observe natural justice.

p. 5

The civil court’s decree restrained the respondents from making a final assessment without considering the petitioner’s objections.

p. 2, 4

The respondents relied on the statutory appeal under Section 100 of the Urban Local Body Act, 1998, but the Court held that its availability did not, by itself, bar the writ petition in the circumstances.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Urban Local Body Act, 1998 Section 100

04Reasoning

The impugned order referred to the petitioner’s 2019 objections but gave no reasons for rejecting them, and it did not address his 2008 objections.

p. 5

Instead, the tax was determined on the basis of an inspection report.

p. 5

That failure also left the civil court’s direction unfulfilled.

p. 5

Because the objections had not been meaningfully considered, the proceedings were vitiated by a breach of natural justice; the alternative appellate remedy therefore did not prevent the Court from granting relief under Article 226.

p. 5