RAZEENA BEGUM Vs. PUDUKOTTAI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.V.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE issue involved in these cases is about the property demand notices issued to the petitioners concerned by the first respondent Pudukkottai Municipality in the form of prosecution notice dated 14.02.2008 as contemplated under Rules 30 to 34 of Schedule IV of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the said prosecution notice dated 14.02.2008, the petitioners are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,52,893/- and Rs.3,00,922/- respectively, being the amount of tax due on the basis of escaped assessment for the period from second half of 2002-03 to the first half of 2007-08.

(3.) NO counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. However, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents Municipality, on instructions, would submit that the claim was made in the impugned prosecution notices based on an earlier demand notice dated 09.07.2007. Thereafter, giving 15 days time as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and considering the objections made by the petitioners, the final orders came to be passed in December, 2007. Since the amount was not paid by the petitioners, the impugned prosecution notices were issued by the first respondent Municipality. Further, it is his contention that the assessment is permissible for a period of six years from the date of order. As per Section 117-A of the Act, as amended in the year 1997, and this is treated as 'escaped assessment' and on this basis, impugned notices were issued against the petitioners. He would also submit that as per the said provision, the assessment made is valid for a period of six years. In any event, according to him, as against any order of assessment, an appeal lies to the Taxation Appeals Committee, under Section 89 of the Act. He would also rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in "Krishnamoorthy M.L (died) Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu" reported in (2007 (5) CTC 465) to substantiate his contention. In the said decision, the right of the petitioners to file appeal as per District Municipalities Act, especially, under Section 89 of the Act, has been discussed by the Division Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment is extracted as follows:- "4. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of District Municipalities Act provides for an Appeal remedy to the Taxation Appellate Committee under Section 89 of the District Municipalities Act and further Appeal to the District Court. On the face of the availability of an alternative remedy, the plea taken by the appellant that the entire building has to be taken as one unit and different numbers allotted to the adjacent premises could not be viewed as independent units could effectively be agitated before the Taxation Appellate Committee. On the face of the assessment made, the proper course for the appellant herein is to seek the Appeal remedy".