HCL Technologies Limited Vs Commissioner (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Madras High Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that the petitioner have alternative remedy to file appeal and have also directed to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- for saving the premises from getting sealed by authorities.
Facts: In present case, the writ petition was filed by petitioner and contended that the petitioner cannot be saddled with property tax liability at rates applicable to Commercial units, as the petitioner is a software industry. It was submitted that the respective levy of tax from 2011 retrospectively is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. It was further submitted that the impugned order dated 28.09.2022, was served on the petitioner at 3.00 p.m on 29.09.2022 and on 30.09.2022, two Officers from the respondent Corporation threatened to seal the premises. Due to which Rs.50,00,000/- was paid by the Petitioner under protest.
It was further submitted that petitioner was not even given an opportunity to file appeal within the time prescribed under Section 138, Schedule IV, Taxation Rules, Part V, Rule 12 & 14 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
The Respondent submitted that there was an alternative remedy through appeal.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court after taking submissions of both sides observed directed the petitioners to file a statutory appeal before the Statutory Authority in terms of Section 138, Schedule IV, Taxation Part V, Rule 12 & 14 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 within the period of limitation prescribed as the matter would require detailed consideration in appeal.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is prima facie liable to pay tax on commercial rates only from 2018 and since the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, the petitioners were directed to deposit another sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and the second respondent i.e. Corporation Deputy Commissioner was directed to not to lock the premises of the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal, so that the activities at the petitioner’s Software Technologies Limited are not hampered.
Accordingly the wit petition was disposed of.
