2018 (10) TMI 1966 - HC - Indian Laws

Levy of Urban Land Tax - lands owned by the petitioner-Temple - HELD THAT - The respondents are not justified in insisting the petitioner-Temple to pay disputed tax, without considering and disposing the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2005, seeking exemption from payment of such tax - Perusal of the representation dated 09.02.2005 would disclose that the same was acknowledged by the office of the first respondent on 10.02.2005, evidently from the affixture of seal and signature of some official at the office of the first respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said representation made by the first respondent has to be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed without loss of further time. In any event as the said representation is said to be not available in the file of the first respondent, the petitioner is directed to furnish one more copy of the same to the first respondent along with the order passed in this writ petition. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the representation dated 09.02.2005 along with the order passed in this writ petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice of demand for Urban Land Tax exemption under Section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Temple, challenged a notice of demand for Urban Land Tax issued by the second respondent. The Temple owns lands in various areas and some are let out for commercial and residential purposes. It is under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and managed by an Executive Officer and non-hereditary Trustees. The income from the lands is used exclusively for public religious purposes. The Temple sought exemption from Urban Land Tax under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act through a representation dated 09.02.2005, which was acknowledged by the first respondent. However, the respondents continued to demand the tax without disposing of the representation. The Court directed the petitioner to provide another copy of the representation for consideration and ordered the first respondent to pass a decision within four weeks after receiving the copy.

The Court noted that the representation dated 09.02.2005, acknowledged by the first respondent, was not available in their file as claimed by the respondents. However, a copy of the representation filed in the typed set of papers showed acknowledgment by an official from the first respondent's office. The Court emphasized that the representation must be considered without delay. The petitioner was directed to submit another copy of the representation along with the Court's order to the first respondent. The Court ordered the first respondent to evaluate the representation and make a decision within four weeks after receiving the documents.

The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the representation dated 09.02.2005 along with the Court's order within two weeks. The first respondent was directed to review the representation and make a decision within four weeks after receiving the documents. Until a decision was made, the respondents were ordered to maintain the status quo regarding the demand for Urban Land Tax. The Court concluded the judgment without imposing any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.