S. Thirugnanam vs. The Imposition Of Tax And Tax Appellate Committee

Held

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the Imposition of Tax and Tax Appellate Committee suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The reasoning was that the appellate authority considered a property at a different location (GST Road, Thiruparankundram) than the property belonging to the petitioner (Government Higher Secondary School Road) which was the subject matter of the appeal. This misidentification was deemed a significant error. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The appellate authority was directed to pass orders in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties or stakeholders. The Court did not decide on the 'D' Grade assessment.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Thirugnanam, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Imposition of Tax and Tax Appellate Committee, Madurai Municipal Corporation. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondents to assess property tax for two specific assessment numbers (115/007/903560 and 115/097/904069) considering them as 'D' Grade. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority erred by considering a property located at Door No.255, 255 A, GST Road, Thiruparankundram, instead of the petitioner's property at Door No.36A, Government Higher Secondary School Road, Ward No.97, Zone-4, Madurai. The petitioner contended that the subject matter of the appellate authority's consideration was entirely different from the property under appeal, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Imposition of Tax and Tax Appellate Committee suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record due to misidentification of the property under assessment, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the relevant provisions governing property tax assessment? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority committed a grave error by considering a property at a different location (GST Road, Thiruparankundram) than the one under appeal (Government Higher Secondary School Road). This misidentification, according to the petitioner, renders the order illegal and an error apparent on the face of the record. Respondents' Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellate authority may be permitted to re-consider the entire matter.