N SRINIVASAN Vs. ASST REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) In all these cases, the orders impugned are the Final Warrant Notices issued by the Corporation demanding various amounts of property tax and the warrant notices are challenged on various grounds including that the notices contain no particulars and that the notices have been issued without application of mind since in some of the cases, Door Numbers have not been correctly given and there are many discrepancies regarding names of the owner etc.

(3.) Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation appearing in W.P.Nos.256, 539 and 546 of 2010 and Mr.L.N.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation in W.P.No.21761/2009 would submit that in all these cases, the original assessment of property tax was made in the year 1988 based on the self-assessment and based on the particulars furnished by the owners of the property. Subsequently, the Corporation found certain discrepancies regarding self-assessment given by the owners in respect of various matters including measurement of the land, annual income etc and in those circumstances, the present impugned orders came to be passed by way of revision.