IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 2684 of 2007(T)
1. M/S. BHAGEERATHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :23/01/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 2684 of 2007
----------------------------------
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon the learned Standing
Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent Corporation.
Sri.Manu V., the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the apartments in question were actually constructed by the
petitioner company, but it is seen that the assessment has been
made in the name of the company by name Bhageeratha
Constructions. According to Mr.Manu, there is no company by
name Bhageeratha Constructions. The petitioner company
came to know about the assessment order only when one of the
Directors of the petitioner company was served with Ext.P2
demand notice. According to Sri.Manu it was the petitioner
company who constructed the apartment and later the ownership
over the apartment was transferred to the purchasers and the
Corporation is not justified in making the demands on the
directions of the petitioner company.
WPC No.2684/2007 2
2. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ
petition will not be maintainable in law. The Corporation is not
aware of any transfer of the apartments. No notice under
Section 240 has been served regarding the alleged transfer by
the petitioner or by anybody. The counsel further submitted
that the aggrieved party will have to pursue his statutory
appellate remedies before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of
this court.
3. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the
view that the petitioner company should be directed to prefer an
appeal against the assessment order. Going by the statute under
Section 509 (2) of the Municipality Act to maintain any appeal it
is obligatory that tax under demand is remitted in full. From
Ext.P2 it it seen that tax under demand is Rs.12,03,889/-.
Considering the special circumstances, which attend on this
cases, the petitioner company is permitted to prefer an appeal
under Section 509 (2) by remitting 50% of the above amount. If
the petitioner company remits 50% of the tax amount of
Rs.12,03,889/- within three weeks from today, and
simultaneously prefers an appeal to the Standing Committee
(Taxes) of the respondent Corporation, the Standing Committee
WPC No.2684/2007 3
will entertain that appeal as one regularly filed on time and
dispose of the appeal in accordance with law at the earliest. Till
the disposal of the prospective appeal, no coercive steps will be
initiated by the respondent against the petitioner or any of the
Directors of the petitioner company.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk