Skip to content


Maharbhan-i-dosthan Sree Rajah Ravu venkatakumara Mahipathi Suryarao Bahadur Garu, Sirdar, Rajahmundry Sircar and Maharajah of Pittapuram Vs. the Municipal Council, Cocanada by the Commissioner - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMunicipal Tax
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad377(2); (1943)1MLJ150
AppellantMaharbhan-i-dosthan Sree Rajah Ravu "venkatakumara Mahipathi Suryarao Bahadur Garu, Sirdar, Rajahmun
RespondentThe Municipal Council, Cocanada by the Commissioner
Excerpt:
- - learned district munsiff was therefore perfectly justified in finding that there was no scope for a refund of the proportionate share of the tax merely because the building came to be used as an educational institution subsequent to the levy of the tax......tax paid under such circumstances.2. section 81 of the district municipalities act provides for a levy of property taxon all buildings and lands within municipal limits save those exempted by or under this act or any other law.section 82 provides for the method of assessment. section 83 states what all buildings and lands are exempt from property tax; and under that section buildings used for educational purposes including hostels, public buildings and places used for the charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute or animals, and libraries and playgrounds which are open to the public are exempt from such tax. section 86 states:the property tax shall be levied every half-year and shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in schedule iv, be paid by the owner of the assessed premises.....
Judgment:

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiff in Small Cause Suit 269 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Cocanada seeks to have the decree therein revised tax dismissing his suit for recovery of a portion of the amount paid by' him as property tax for a building within the limits of the municipality of Cocanada. The building in question belonged to the plaintiff Maharajah on the date on which the property tax was levied. Subsequent to the levy but during the half-year in which the tax was levied he made a gift of it to an educational institution. He therefore sought to recover the portion of the tax paid by him which according to him represented the tax for the period during which the building was used by the educational institution. The learned District Munsiff held that the levy Was proper as on the date of the levy the building was a private building and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund because there is no provision in the Act for a refund of the tax paid under such circumstances.

2. Section 81 of the District Municipalities Act provides for a levy of property tax

on all buildings and lands within municipal limits save those exempted by or under this Act or any other law.

Section 82 provides for the method of assessment. Section 83 states what all buildings and lands are exempt from property tax; and under that section buildings used for educational purposes including hostels, public buildings and places used for the charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute or animals, and libraries and playgrounds which are open to the public are exempt from such tax. Section 86 states:

The property tax shall be levied every half-year and shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in Schedule IV, be paid by the owner of the assessed premises within thirty days after the commencement of the half-year.

As within 30 days from the commencement of the half-year in which the levy was made the building was a private building, the levy was valid. The levy is not for a half-year but in a half-year, and so it cannot be said that the mere fact that for a portion of the half-year it was used as an educational institution, will entitle the person who paid the tax to get a refund of the proportionate share of the amount. Under Section 83 the exemption can be claimed only at the time of the levy if the building is used as an educational institution. When once it is levied the levy is complete and no refund can be had unless it is provided in the Act. The Act provides for a refund when the building is demolished or when it is not in occupation of a private owner. The. learned District Munsiff was therefore perfectly justified in finding that there was no scope for a refund of the proportionate share of the tax merely because the building came to be used as an educational institution subsequent to the levy of the tax.

3. The revision petition is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //