LAWS(MAD)-2016-10-64

KOTTAR ELANKADAI MUSLIEM SAMUDHAYA TRUST REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, 2 AND 3 APPELLANTS KOTTAR, VADIVEESWARAM VILLAGE, AGASTEESWARAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, NAGERCOIL MUNICIPALITY, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

Decided On October 25, 2016
Kottar Elankadai Musliem Samudhaya Trust Represented By The President, 2 And 3 Appellants Kottar, Vadiveeswaram Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District Appellant
V/S
The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.409 of 1996 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff is a Trust and filed the suit for declaration that the assessment of property tax from the assessment year 01.10.1988 and the notice dated 08.01.1990 sent by the respondent / defendant in respect of the plaintiff's building bearing Door No.33/2-66F of Kottar Ilangadai Muslim Samuthaya Trust, are illegal.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that the appellant trust constructed a Thirumanamandapam in a property belonged to the trust and that the defendant municipality assigned door number. It is the specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant municipality was levying tax for the building only at the rate of Rs.147.00 per half year for the assessment year from 1986-1987. Though upto the second half year 1988-1989 the property tax was assessed at the rate of Rs.154.40, suddenly the respondent/defendant municipality levied tax at the rate of Rs.18,231.90 per half year from 01.10.1988 and sent a demand notice vide No.17840. The respondent/defendant also sent the notice dated 08.01.1990 to prosecute the appellant/plaintiff and demanded a sum of Rs.60,732.00 for three half years of assessment. Since the respondent/defendant municipality did not issue any notice before the assessment and the notice of demand was bereft of particulars, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit on the premise that the demand notice without assessment of property tax after due notice to the plaintiff trust, is illegal.