2018 (1) TMI 1002 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of assessment order - levy of Urban Land Tax - Held that - the authority on facts concluded that the contention of the petitioner that the land is agricultural in nature is not tenable. Referring to Section 2(13) of the Act which states that no Urban Land Tax can be levied in respect of the land which is not capable of being used as a house site. But the petitioner themselves have admitted that the land is used for recreational and commercial purpose. Thus, on a re-appreciation of the factual position, the first respondent upheld the order passed by the second respondent. Inspection was conducted of the petitioner s lands which is clear from the fact that the usage of the land in respect of different survey numbers has been specifically mentioned which fact has not been denied by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the Original Authority, namely, the second respondent having done a factual exercise measured the property, ascertain the usage and then assessed the petitioner to tax, the correctness of which was tested by the first respondent in the revision by re-appreciating the factual position, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot convert itself in to that of second Appellate Authority and interfere with the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming assessment under Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 as amended by Act, 1991.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order confirming assessment under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. The petitioner contended that the lands in question were agricultural in character and exempt from Urban Land Tax. They argued that major portions of the lands were agricultural and not suitable for construction due to coastal zone regulations. The petitioner also claimed that an inspection was not conducted before assessment. The respondent, however, argued that the lands were not agricultural but used for commercial purposes like a beach resort. They stated that the lands were inspected and found to be used for recreational and commercial activities. The first respondent upheld the assessment after re-evaluating the facts and usage of the lands.

The revisional authority considered the inspection notes and records, concluding that the lands were used for recreational and commercial purposes, not agricultural. The authority referred to Section 2(13) of the Act, stating that Urban Land Tax cannot be levied on land not capable of being used as a house site. The petitioner admitted to using the land for recreational and commercial purposes, leading to the confirmation of the assessment by the first respondent.

The court found that the petitioner had the opportunity to present their case and inspection of the lands was conducted. The court emphasized that it cannot act as a second appellate authority and interfere with the assessment unless there is a clear error. As the assessment was based on factual evaluation and upheld by the first respondent, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating there was no error in the orders passed by the respondents.