1. Issue notice. Mr.Sundaramoorthy, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1, while Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. With the consent of counsels for parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
3. This Writ Petition is directed against the notice dated 21.11.2016 issued by respondent No.1.
3.1. By virtue of the impugned notice, the annual value of the property has been pegged at Rs.1,62,811/-. Accordingly, the tax demanded of the petitioner has been crystallised at Rs.17,909/- per half Assessment Year.
4. Counsel for the petitioner says that while the petitioner is not aggrieved by either the annual value or the amount of tax indicated in the impugned notice, his grievance is with regard to the fact that the tax is demanded with retrospective effect and that too, since, the second half of Assessment Year 2005-06.
4.1. It is the petitioner's case, that the construction of the subject building, which is a Marriage Hall, was completed in, or about, December, 2013 and the licence under the Tamil Nadu Public Building Licensing Act, Act No.13 of 1965 (in short the '1965 Act') obtained in 2014. For this purpose, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the documents appended at page Nos.4 to 8 of the typed set of documents.
4.2. I may state, at the outset, the documents appended at page Nos.4 to 8 of the typed set of documents comprise of an application and a challan form dated 05.09.2014. The challan form is indicative of fact that the petitioner appears to have deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- pursuant to his application for issuance of licence.
5. I have queried the counsel for the petitioner as to whether under the 1965 Act, the issuance of challan would satisfy, as there is no document evidencing that licence is issued. Counsel for the petitioner says that, challan represents issuance of a licence.
6. Mr.Sundaramoorthy, who appears for respondent No.1 and Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, who appears for respondent No.2, on the other hand, are also not able to lend any clarity to clear the issue.
7. Apart from the aforesaid circumstance, it is clear upon a bare perusal of the impugned notice that respondent No.1 has indicated to the petitioner that, if, he were dissatisfied with the assessment made, he could prefer a revision petition with him, within 30/60 days of the service of the impugned notice.
8. Counsel for the respondents say that the impugned notice, in substance, a show cause notice and, therefore, revision petition in the form of objections to the impugned notice could be preferred to respondent No.1.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving leave to the petitioner to prefer a revision petition with respondent No.1, within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
9.1. The petitioner, will be at liberty to articulate his objections to the period of assessment before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, will pass a speaking order.
10. In so far as the averment made before me that a licence has been obtained by the petitioner with regard to the subject building, if necessary, respondent No.1, will, inquire into the same.
11. Resultantly, connected Miscellaneous Petition shall stand closed as well. However, there will be no order as to costs.