S.Lakshmanan vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, S. Lakshmanan, was granted a license by the Madurai Corporation to cut and remove grass from Corporation lands. The petitioner had previously challenged demands for charges, including GST, in other writ petitions where interim stays were granted. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the petitioner could not utilize the license for several months. Consequently, the Corporation issued impugned communications on June 18, 2020, July 2, 2020, and July 20, 2020, demanding a further sum of Rs. 53,99,452/-. The petitioner's license was valid until March 31, 2021. The petitioner sought to quash these demands, specifically the levy of 18% belated payment charges, and requested an extension of the license period or a proportionate reduction in license fees for the lockdown period. The impugned demand was tentatively quantified at Rs. 45 lakhs.

Held

The Court acknowledged the hardship faced by the petitioner due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The petitioner was permitted to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 45 lakhs in installments: Rs. 22,50,000/- by November 30, 2020, and the remaining Rs. 22,50,000/- by December 31, 2020. The petitioner provided an undertaking not to seek further extension for this payment. Failure to adhere to this undertaking would allow the Corporation to take appropriate action, including termination of the license. The petitioner's request for an extension of the license period beyond March 31, 2021, was to be dealt with in independent proceedings, with liberty granted to approach the Corporation. The Corporation would consider such requests on merits based on the petitioner's conduct in clearing the current demand. The court did not decide on the merits of quashing the 18% belated payment charges or the proportionate reduction of license fees, focusing instead on facilitating payment and resolving the immediate financial dispute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the proceedings dated 18.06.2020, 02.07.2020, and 20.07.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Madurai Corporation, insofar as they levy 18% belated payment charges, and consequently, direct the respondents to extend the license period or reduce the license fee for the lockdown period? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of license terms and the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, they were unable to utilize the licensed property for cutting grass for a few months, causing hardship. - The petitioner sought either an extension of the license period equivalent to the lockdown duration or a proportionate reduction in the license fee for the period of lockdown. - The petitioner also sought time to clear the outstanding liability. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's claims in the provided judgment. The court's order suggests the respondents' primary concern was the recovery of the license fees.