IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 965 of 2007()
1. A.C.HARIDAS,HAPPY VILLA, CSEZ P.O.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(BUILDING TAX),
For Petitioner :SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/06/2007
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.T.Sankaran, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.965 of 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 4th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
In this writ appeal the appellant is calling in question the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7710 of 2007 dated 7.3.2007. By the impugned
order the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the
petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of appeal.
2. Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend
that the 1st respondent viz. Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, had issued a notice proposing
to bring to tax the apartment owned by the appellant and notice was issued proposing to
levy building tax under the provisions of the Kerala building Tax Act, 1975.
3. It is the case of the appellant that he had filed detailed objections, inter alia,
bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent that he is in no way responsible for
payment of the building tax under the Act. It is the further case before this Court that
the Tahsildar without considering those objections has proceeded to pass the impugned
order.
4. The purpose of issuing a notice and consideration of the objections filed to the
said notice has been explained by various High Courts including the apex Court. In the
present case, a proposal is made by the Tahsildar to levy building tax under the Act.
The said proposal is opposed by filing detailed objections. It was expected of the 1st
respondent to have considered those objections and to have passed an appropriate
order. Without doing so, in the present case, he has proceeded to complete the
assessment and also has issued a demand notice against the first appellant. This
W.A.No.965/2007 2
action of the 1st respondent, in our opinion, is in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
5. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent Tahsildar
requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the 1st respondent
for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
6. The learned Single Judge without noticing the aforesaid aspect of the matter
has merely relegated the appellant to file appeal as provided under the Act. The
findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, cannot be
justified. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge also requires to be
set aside by us.
In the result, the following:
Order
i) The writ appeal is allowed.
ii) The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7710 of 2007 is
set aside.
iii) The orders passed by the 1st respondent Tahsildar is also set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent Tahsildar for fresh consideration and to
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and, if it is possible and permissible,
after giving. an opportunity of being heard to the assessee/appellant.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.Dattu)
Chief Justice
(K.T.Sankaran)
Judge
mt/-