Senthil.A vs. The Government Of Tamilnadu
Facts
The petitioner, A. Senthil, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated September 10, 2020, issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality (fourth respondent). The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and consequently direct the fourth respondent to re-fix the rent by hiking it by 15% from Rs. 4,731 plus GST from 2018 onwards. Additionally, the petitioner requested a waiver of rent for specific periods: September 2018 to February 2019 and April 2020 to September 2020. The fourth respondent stated that the demand notice was for Rs. 9,89,241, and the petitioner had deposited Rs. 4,00,000 as per an interim order, with no further payments made.
Held
The Court noted that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect. In view of this endorsement, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the fourth respondent to take action in accordance with law. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed. No costs were awarded. The Court did not decide on the merits of the demand notice, the rent re-fixation, or the rent waiver requests.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated September 10, 2020, issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality, is illegal and arbitrary, warranting its quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the re-fixation of rent by hiking it by 15% from Rs. 4,731 plus GST from 2018 until the present date. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a waiver of rent for the periods between September 2018 to February 2019 and April 2020 to September 2020. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and obtain directions for rent re-fixation and waiver. The specific arguments supporting these claims are not detailed in the provided text. Respondents' Contention: The fourth respondent submitted that a demand notice for Rs. 9,89,241 was issued, and the petitioner had deposited Rs. 4,00,000 as per an interim order, but no further payments were made.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.04.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR and W.M.P(MD)Nos.4818 and 4820 of 2021 A.Senthil ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary of Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commission of Municipal Administration, No.78, Urban Administration Building, Santhame High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annadurai Puram, Chennai. 3.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tirunelveli Regional, Tirunelveli. 4.The Municipal Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis call for the records of the impugned demand notice of the fourth respondent made in Na.ka.No.73/2019/A1, dated 10.09.2020 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the fourth respondent to re-fix the rent by hiking 1
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.