IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32651 of 2007(K)
1. THE SECRETARY, VRINDAVAN APARTMENTS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) Nos. 32651 & 32652 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 14th November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
These writ petitions are filed challenging Exts. P5 &
P6 orders of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act
(for short the Act) and the steps taken for recovery of
the amounts due invoking the provisions of the Revenue
Recovery Act.
2. Petitioners in these cases are apartment owners
of residential complexes. By Ext. P2 in these cases, the
2nd respondent assessing officer has imposed Building Tax
taking each of the whole apartment complex as one unit and
on that basis tax has been demanded on the petitioners.
3. According to the petitioners, the owners of the
individual apartments whose details are furnished in the
writ petition had entered into individual agreements with
the landlords purchasing undivided interest in the land
where the building has been constructed for themselves. It
is further stated that these individual owners, entered
into agreements with the builder concerned and made
contributions on the basis of which the building has been
WP(C)No.32651 & 32652/07
– 2 –
constructed. According to the petitioner, the agreements
also provide that the owners had agreed to pay the tax in
terms of the provisions contained in the Act. On this
basis, petitioners contend that it is the individual
owners of the apartments who are liable to be assessed for
Building Tax and that too, taking each flat separately.
4. In identical cases, this Court had interfered with
similar orders of assessment and directed denovo enquiry
by the assessing officer with liberty to the builder or
the Apartment Owners’ Association to produce evidence in
support of their case. One such judgment is reported in
Bava Sons Construction Private Limited v. State of Kerala
& Others {2007 (2) KHC 409}. Since the facts of these
cases are identical with the facts of that case, I am
satisfied that the petitioners in these cases are also
entitled to similar reliefs.
5. Accordingly, Exts. P5, P5(a), P5(b) and P6
orders of assessment and revenue recovery notices in these
cases will stand quashed. The 2nd respondent in these
cases will issue notice to the petitioners and also to the
individual apartment owners, whose names and other details
have been furnished in these writ petitions. Thereupon,
WP(C)No.32651 & 32652/07
– 3 –
an enquiry will be conducted and it will be open to the
petitioner or the individual owners of the apartments to
adduce evidence to prove that they own undivided interest
in the land and on the basis of their agreements,
utilising their contribution the respective apartment was
constructed. For this purpose, petitioners and the
apartment owners will be permitted to make available
whatever document they want and to adduce such evidence as
they think necessary to prove their cases. On the basis
of the evidence so adduced the 2nd respondent will re-
consider the whole matter and pass fresh orders.
6. The 2nd respondent shall pass orders as above
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
Petitioners shall produce copy of this judgment
before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-