Madras High Court
WP(MD)/30955/2026 of SOWMYANARAYANAN V Vs The Commissioner on 2 November 2026
WP(MD) No. 30955 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 30955 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011517442026}
V.Sowmyanarayanan
Represented by his power of attorney,
R.Thillaivillalan,
S/o. T.C. Ramasubramanian,
No.95-A/B, Aruppukottai Main Road,
Villapuram, Madurai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner.
Zone-5 (West),
Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call or the records to the impugned order in MA5AA1/005012/2025 dated 18.09.2026 and the consequential demand notice dated 26.09.2026 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner
: Mr.S.Jaya Vasanthan
For Respondents
: Mr.F.Deepak
Standing Counsel
__________
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:34:03 am )
WP(MD) No. 30955 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7105 of 2026 challenging demand notice dated 06.08.2025 and consequential order dated 17.10.2025. Said Writ Petition was disposed of by holding that the impugned assessment shall be treated as a provisional assessment and that the petitioner's objections should be considered before issuing a final assessment order. The order impugned herein was issued pursuant thereto.
2. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is erroneously recorded therein that the petitioner had paid property tax on the basis that it was a residential property. Relying on property tax receipts for several years between 2017 and 2019, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that property tax was paid under the commercial head. He also submits that the payment of a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- made by the petitioner was not duly taken into account in the impugned order.
3. Accepting notice for the Madurai Corporation, Mr.F.Deepak, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the impugned order was issued __________
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:34:03 am )
WP(MD) No. 30955 of 2026 entirely in conformity with the earlier order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7105 of 2026. He also submits that the classification was changed to commercial after noticing that the petitioner had put up a Kalyanamandapam on the relevant property.
4. Under Section 100 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, the petitioner has a statutory appeal. The period of limitation for lodging such an appeal has not expired as on date. Considering the fact that the impugned order was issued after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner in view of the existence of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy.
5. Hence, by leaving it open to the petitioner to lodge a statutory appeal, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 02-11-2026 Index: No Speaking Neutral Citation: No JEN __________
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:34:03 am )
WP(MD) No. 30955 of 2026 To
1. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-5 (West), Madurai Corporation, Madurai. __________
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:34:03 am )
WP(MD) No. 30955 of 2026 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. JEN WP(MD) No. 30955 of 2026 02-11-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:34:03 am )