IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2007 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1929 WP(C).No. 9692 of 2007(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. P.M.MAMMEN, MALAYIL PAINUMMOOTTIL, PIRALASSERY, MULAKKUZHA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ANNAMMA MAMMEN, MALAYIL PAINUMMOOTTIL, PIRALASSERY, MULAKKUZHA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZH DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE THAHASILDAR, CHENGANNUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:EXT.P1- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13-3-1998. EXT.P2- COPY OF the DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13-3-1998 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY the VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENGANNUR DATED 24-3-1998. EXT.P4- COPY OF THE NOTICE, B.T.NO.70/2005 DATED 2-2-2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITOIENR DATED 7-2-2005. EXT.P6- COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY the IST PETITIONER DATED 14-2-2005. EXT.P7- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF EXT.P6 DATED 15-2-2007. EXT.P8- COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER DATED 8-9-2006. EXT.P9A- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 1-2-2007. EXT.P9B- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 1-2-2007. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9692 of 2007-D --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge Ext.P9 (a) order, assessing building tax and also Ext.P9 (b) consequential demand notice. Though, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P8 representation, the same was not considered. Instead, the assessment order has been passed by filling the gaps in a printed format. Since the assessment order does not contain any reasons or grounds, it is not possible to invoke the appellate remedy, it is submitted. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents also. The files were called for. In the files also no proceeding is available assessing building tax. The assessment order given in a printed format filling the gap will not satisfy the requirements. It should contain the grounds and reasons for making the assessment and not accepting the objections of the petitioners. In the result, Exts.P9 (a) and P9 (b) are quashed. The Tahsildar is free to pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The order shall be a speaking order dealing with the contentions of the petitioners. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. MS