Renuka Viswanathan vs Tahsildar on 8 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 37343 of 2001(U)



1. RENUKA VISWANATHAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. TAHSILDAR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :08/01/2008

 O R D E R
                     C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                     =========================
                         O.P.NO.37343 OF 2001
                     =========================
                   Dated this the 8th day of January 2008

                                JUDGMENT

Petitioners challenge Ext.P9 order which is an order in appeal

issued by the Assistant Collector under the Building Tax Act. It is seen

that the appeal was disposed of earlier without hearing the petitioners.

Petitioners challenged the earlier order passed and this Court vide

Ext.P8 judgment set aside the appellate order and remanded the

matter for re-hearing. Ext.P9 order is issued pursuant to the directions

contained in Ext.P8 judgment. The assessment order against which

appeal is filed is not produced in this Original Petition. Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any

assessment order. I am unable to believe this fact because the appeal

is maintainable only when it is accompanied by the assessment order.

Moreover, even though the petitioner approached this Court earlier

and obtained Ext.P8 judgment, there is nothing to indicate that the

petitioner had this grievance and if such a contention was raised, I

have no doubt that this Court would have ordered to issue a copy of

the assessment order. On going through Ext.P7 which is a demand

notice, I find that the building tax assessment is completed based on

the capital value. This is seen made based on the rent received by

O.P.37343/2001 2

the petitioners from the Bharat Charitable hospital Society. The

construction of the building was completed before 1992 and the plinth

area method of the assessment was introduced in its statute only later.

Even though assessment made together for two buildings, mistake was

later rectified because two buildings were owned by each of the two

petitioners and were constructed at different times. I do not find

anything wrong in the rectification carried out by the assessing

authority. The Original petition is therefore devoid of any merit and is

dismissed.

                              C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
                                      JUDGE
css/

O.P.37343/2001    3