IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22471 of 2009(D)
1. K.S.MURALY, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. TAHASILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :07/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 22471 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of 2.10 cents of land lying close to the
property of 2.4 cents owned by his mother. The petitioner and the
mother submitted separate applications for constructing two buildings
and after considering the two separate plans produced in this regard,
the local authority (Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram) had granted
two separate Permits as well. On the basis of the Permits issued, the
petitioner and his mother completed the construction and filed two
separate returns as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the
Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. However, the concerned village officer
submitted a report showing the buildings as a ‘single unit’; based on
which, the second respondent, without any regard to the actual facts
and figures and the relevant provisions of law, passed Ext.P1 order of
assessment, whereby the building was assessed as a ‘single unit’ and
the entire tax liability was mulcted on the petitioner.
2. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal, after remitting <th
of the disputed liability, as borne by Ext.P2 receipt. After considering
the merits of the appeal, the appellate authority allowed the appeal as
per Ext.P3 order and the matter was remitted to the second respondent
WP (C) No. 22471 of 2009
: 2 :
for passing fresh orders, after physically verifying the building by the
Deputy Tahasilder.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the second respondent
has not given any effect to Ext.P2 order passed by the appellate
authority and is proceeding with the coercive steps against the
petitioner, which is not correct or sustainable. The petitioner has also
got a case that, subsequently, the very same respondent/assessing
authority has assessed the building belonging to the mother of the
petitioner, fixing a tax liability of Rs. 2025/- and the said amount was
remitted by the assessee as borne by Ext.P6 receipt. This being the
position, there cannot be any wider liability in respect of the building
belonging to the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the
petitioner; asserting that the ‘plinth area’ in respect of both the buildings
is one and the same.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. The sequence of events and the relevant facts and figures
have been meticulously adverted to by the appellate authority, while
passing Ext.P3 order. The second respondent/ assessing authority is
very much bound by the orders passed by the appellate authority and
the proceedings are to be finalized in tune with Ext.P3 order. In the
said circumstances, the second respondent is directed to finalize the
proceedings and to pass modified assessment order pursuant to
WP (C) No. 22471 of 2009
: 3 :
Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that till such
modified assessment order is passed, all further coercive proceedings,
stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in
abeyance. The liability to pay any further amount by the petitioner, as
well as the liability to refund the amount, if the same has already been
effected by the petitioner is excess, will depend upon the order to be
passed by the second respondent as above. It it is found that the
amount deposited by the petitioner is excess, such excess extent shall
be refunded to the petitioner within a further period of one month
thereafter.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd