IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34003 of 2007(W)
1. M/S.AVVA UMMA AND CO.(DISSOLVED),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA.
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C). 34003/2007
--------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
The controversy in this writ petition is regarding
Ext.P11 order that the District Collector has issued
rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner under the
Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
2. There are two grounds found against the petitioner.
First one is regarding the non-compliance of Section 13(4)
of the Act requiring the remittance of 50% tax and the
second one is that the petitioner had filed revision petition
belatedly.
3. O.P.2628/2003 filed by the petitioner, challenging
Exts.P6 and P7 orders was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment
directing the petitioner to file revision before the third
respondent. A time limit of six weeks was also fixed for
filing such a revision. However, Ext.P10 revision was filed
beyond that period. But the fact remains that in the
meanwhile, the petitioner had filed I.A.12783/2007
W.P.(C).34003/2007
2
seeking enlargement of time for filing the revision and
that I.A was allowed by Ext.P9 order dated 19.10.2007.
Since the revision was filed within the enlarged time, the
finding of the District Collector that the revision was
filed belatedly is incorrect and is ignoring by Ext.P9
order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
Thus, the second ground is unsustainable.
4. In so far as the first ground that 50% was not
remitted in compliance with Section 13(4) of the Act is
concerned, according to the petitioners, they had
already remitted 25% and that had they been given an
opportunity to make the deposit, they would have
deposited the balance 25%. Strictly speaking there is
default, but then, I think that for this reason, the
petitioner shall not be denied an opportunity to contest
his case on merits.
5. Having heard the submissions made by both sides,
I dispose of this writ petition directing the third
W.P.(C).34003/2007
3
respondent to re-consider Ext.P10 revision on merits and
as a consequence, Ext.P11 will stand quashed. It is also
directed that within two weeks from today, the petitioner
shall make remittance of tax in terms of Section 13(4)
and thereupon the revision will be entertained on merits
and dispose of as above within four weeks thereafter.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment
before the third respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
Judge
mrcs