IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15491 of 2010(J)
1. SOMINI,W/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN,SOMINI MANDIRAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
... Respondent
2. THE KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR)TALUK OFFICE,
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.C.J.JOY, SC,KOTTARAKKARA G.PANCHAYA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :20/07/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15491 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner’s grievance is with respect to the denial of
the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme by the Panchayath in
respect of the payment of building tax. The Panchayath assessed
the building tax in respect of the two buildings of the petitioner
bearing Nos.KP-XIII/184, 185 for the period 2004-2005 onwards
and KP-XIV/259, and by Exhibit P1, a notice was issued
demanding Rs.19,556/- each as tax for the above two buildings.
2. It appears that there was a dispute regarding the rate of
tax, which was ultimately allowed in her favour in an appeal filed
by her before the Panchayath Committee. Exhibit P3 is the
minutes of the Panchayath Committee whereby the building tax
has been reduced to Rs.4,860/-. The dispute herein is only with
respect to building No.KL-XIV/259.
W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 2
3. The petitioner, on receipt of Exhibit P1, raised an
objection as per Exhibit P4 with regard to the calculation of the
total amount. Subsequently, there were various proceedings
including the proceedings for prosecution against the petitioner
and other recovery proceedings. S.T.No.1496/2004 was
dismissed by the trial court.
4. In the revenue recovery proceedings, an amount of
Rs.63,899/- was demanded as per Exhibit P6. In the meanwhile,
after the introduction of the One Time Settlement Scheme, the
petitioner filed an application to recalculate the amount at the
rate of Rs.4860/-. The petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.7017/2010 wherein this Court, by judgment dated
09.03.2010, directed the Panchayath to take a decision on the
request of the petitioner.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that she was prepared to
remit the entire amount before 31.03.2010 but the Panchayath
was demanding more amount namely, Rs.76,312/- other than
the amount covered by Exhibit P6. The communication issued by
W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 3
the Panchayath has been produced as Exhibit P9. Finally, the
petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.63,899/- along with
collection charges at Rs.3,195/- as well as Rs.110/- towards
other miscellaneous expenses.
6. The petitioner has got a further grievance that the
licence in respect of her hotel building which expired in 1998-
1999 has not been considered for renewal even though the
petitioner is prepared to pay the arrears towards various items
including the licence fee.
7. The Panchayath has filed a detailed statement as well as
a counter affidavit. The main contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the demand towards penal
interest cannot be justified and actually the petitioner is entitled
for waiver of the component towards penal interest in the light of
the Government Order granting the facility for One Time
Settlement. Herein, the contention of the Panchayath is that the
said order is dated 13.01.2010 produced as Exhibit R2(c) in the
counter affidavit and obviously, the same can apply only to the
W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 4
year 2009-2010 and therefore, with regard to the penal interest
payable for the years 2000-2001 onwards, the petitioner cannot
be absolved of the liability.
8. Exhibit R2(c) order shows that the Government allowed
the facility for One Time Settlement if the arrears are paid prior
to 31.03.2010. The facility also allows waiver of penal interest.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Panchayath
that the waiver of penal interest can apply only to one year
obviously cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that no such
restriction is made in Exhibit R2(c). Apart from that, as far as
the One Time Settlement Schemes are concerned, normally if the
parties have paid the arrears within the stipulated time, the
entire portion of penal interest would be waived. Herein also, the
same method has been ordered by the Government in
Exhibit R2(c). Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled for the
waiver of penal interest for the entire defaulted periods.
9. On a comparison of the Tables A and B contained in the
counter affidavit, it can be seen that if the component towards
W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 5
penal interest is excluded, the liability will be an amount of
Rs.56,331/- whereas the petitioner has already remitted
Rs.63,899/-. Therefore, there is an excess payment of
Rs.7,568/-.
10. Learned counsel for the Panchayath submitted that if
this Court finds that the penal interest portion has to be waived,
then the excess amount will be adjusted by the Panchayath
against the tax payable in 2010-2011. The said plea is accepted.
The excess amount of Rs.7,568/- would be adjusted towards
payment for the coming year.
11. What remains is renewal of the licence of the hotel
building. The petitioner will have to make proper applications
before the Panchayath for renewal along with required amounts
including arrears and other charges. If a proper application is
filed as above, the same will be considered by the Panchayath in
accordance with the Rules and proper communication will be
issued to the petitioner, expeditiously.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
W.P.(C) No.15491/2010 6
even though the petitioner has remitted various amounts towards
building tax for the subsequent periods, the same is yet to be
adjusted by the Panchayath. The same will also be considered by
the Panchayath and if the remittance have been actually made by
the petitioner, the same will be adjusted and receipts showing
the amount will be issued to the petitioner, if not already issued.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp