IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No.9953 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.12612 of 2003 S.Alagirisamy ....Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai-3 2. The Revenue Officer Revenue Department Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai-3 .... Respondents This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction call for records of the 2nd respondentin Va.Du.U.B.Na.Ka.128/03 dated. 10.03.03 and quash the same and direct the respondents not to disconnect the cable television connection at No.77 T.P.Koil Street, Triplicane, Chennai - 5 as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkateswaran For Respondents: Mr.V.Bharathidasan (For Corporation)-RR 1& 2 O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in Va.Du.U.B.Na.Ka. 128 of 2003 dated 10.3.2003 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents not to disconnect the cable television connected at 77,T.P.Koil Street, Chennai-5. 2. The petitioner is a Proprietor of Sri Raghavendra Cable Network at No.77,T.P.Koil Street, Chennai-5 who is carrying on a business of providing television exhibition from 1.10.1999. He has registered the said business under the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act 1939 coming within the Ice House Assessment Circle, Chennai and has also obtained a Registration Certificate bearing No.11/99-2000 dated 1.12.1999. 3. According to the petitioner, he has filed monthly return in Form 2.B from 1.10.1999 to 1.12.2000 by filing monthly return in Form B and that the Entertainment Tax was collected at 20% of the total collection towards television exhibition for every month. He has also paid security deposit of Rs.10,000/- by way of special term deposit in the name of Commercial Tax Officer, Ice House on account of Sri Raghavendra Cable Net Work. It is the case of the petitioner that he has no arrears of entertainment tax till 1.12.2000. 4. When this being the factual situation, the second respondent has issued a communication dated 14.12.2000, calling for furnishing all particulars for the purpose of assessing the entertainment tax for Cable TV Connection to be collected by the Corporation mentioning the Government Order standing Number 91 from the Secretary, Local Bodies and Water Supply(Election) Department dated 30.6.2000 and by virtue of the said Government Order, the Government has given power to corporation to collect entertainment tax for cable television connection from 1.7.2000 . In the said Government Order, a fee of Rs.20/- is fixed per connection and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid towards security deposit. The second respondent has asked the petitioner to furnish the number of connection from 1.7.2000 and also sought for payment of entertainment tax. 5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent by his communication in Va.Du.U.B.Na.Ka.128 of 2003 dated 10.3.2003 has demanded a total sum of Rs.21,50,940/- being the amount to be paid by the petitioner and this demand has been made by the second respondent without adhering to the procedure enjoined under Tamil Nadu Municipalities (Levy and Collection of Tax for connection of Television Exhibition) Rules 2000 and on this simple ground alone, the communication of the second respondent dated 10.3.2003 is to be set aside and the writ petition needs to be allowed infurtherance of substantial cause of justice. 6. Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Municipalities(Levy and Collection of Tax for connection of Television Exhibition) Rules 2000 speaks of 'filing of return and payment of tax' and admittedly, the petitioner, for the period beginning from 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2003, has not filed his return to the concerned authority and in such a situation, it is the primordial duty of the second respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner, being a proprietor of Sri Raghavendra Cable TV Net Work, calling upon him to produce his accounts, registers, records and other documents at the time and place to be specified in the notice etc as per Rule 8(2) of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu Municipalities(Levy and Collection of Tax for connection of Television Exhibition) Rules 2000. But in the instant case on hand, such a procedure has not been resorted to by the first respondent and therefore,the impugned order dated 10.3.2003 issued by the second respondent, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.21,50,940/- in question, is per se illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. At this stage, one cannot ignore an important fact of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities(Levy and Collection of Tax for connection of Television Exhibition) Rules 2000 provides for filing of an appeal by 'any proprietor aggrieved by any order or decision of the Commissioner under these rules may, within thirty days from the receipt of such orders or decision of the Commissioner appeal in writing to the Taxation Appeals Committee of the town panchayat or municipality concerned or to the Taxation Appeals Tribunal of the municipal corporation concerned'. 8. When this Court posed a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why he has not preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 10.3.2003 issued by the second respondent demanding a sum of Rs.21,50,940/- is to be paid by the petitioner before the competent authority as required in Rule 13 of Tamil Nadu Municipalities(Levy and Collection of Tax for connection of Television Exhibition) Rules 2000. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case on hand, the principles of natural justice have been violated by the respondents and therefore this Court has a wide power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the said illegal order passed by the second respondent to prevent an aberration of justice. 9. A reading of Rule 13 of Tamil Nadu Municipalities(Levy and Collection of Tax for connection of Television Exhibition) Rules 2000 indicates clearly that even against the order of demand dated 10.3.2003 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has got an effective, alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against the impugned order dated 10.3.2003. However, when the rudimentary requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the requisite authority concerned, then there is no embargo for this Court to invoke its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India and since in the present case on hand, the principles of natural justice viz., Audi Alteram Partem have been violated , this Court interferes with the orders of the second respondent and quashes the same and consequently allows this writ petition without costs. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order in Va.Du.U.B.Na.Ka.128 of 2003 dated 10.3.2003 is quashed. NO costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.12612 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is closed. However, this will not preclude the respondents 1 and 2 in issuing a fresh demand notice by scrupulously following the Rules of Tamil Nadu Municipalities(Levy and Collection of Tax for connection of Television Exhibition) Rules 2000 and to take further action in the matter as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sg To 1. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai-3 2. The Revenue Officer Revenue Department Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai-3 1 CC To Mr.K.Venkateswaran, Advocate, SR.No.1104 1 CC To Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate, SR.No.996 W.P.No.9953 of 2003 RV (CO) SS (20.01.2010) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/