IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2011/6TH ASHADAH 1933 WPC.No. 10155 of 2011 (T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- SAFE DEVELOPMENT ALMS TRUST, KARUNA HOSPITAL CAMPUS, MELMURI, PALLIPPURAM.P.O. PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE CUM CHAIRMAN, P.V.HASSAN, AGED 77 YEARS S/O.P.V.MOHAMMED. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 014. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOR - 678 101. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMATTY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 004. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No. 10155 of 2011 (T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF TRUST DEED DTD.20.1.1993 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20.9.2006 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.12.7.2010 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PLAN SHOWING MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS AND THE BUILDINGS THEREIN. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.18.5.2009 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.25.5.2009 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.2.2.2010 EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER DTD.6.2.2010 EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD.25.3.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ---------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.10155 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge is against assessment of Building Tax finalised against the petitioner through Ext.P9 order. According to the petitioner, it is a trust running an educational institution namely 'Karuna Medical College' and the building in question upon which the assessment is made being an educational institution is exempted from the purview of Kerala Building Tax Act 1975, by virtue of Section 3(1)(b). Specific case of the petitioner is that, through Ext.P5 and P8 representations the claim for exemption was brought to the notice of the 4th respondent. But the assessment was finalised without taking note of such claim. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P9 it is evident that the assessment was finalised through a totally non-speaking order issued in a printed form. It is not discernible from the order as to whether any notice as contemplated under Section 9 was issued prior to finalisation of the assessment or as to whether the petitioner had filed any claim/objection. It is trite law by this 2 time that the assessing authority is exercising a quasi-judicial function. The assessing authority is expected to issue reasoned and speaking orders fixing liability for payment of tax. If the building in question is an educational institution as contended by the petitioner, it is evidently exempted from the purview of the statute. In such case even assuming that the petitioner has not submitted any claim prior to finalisation of the assessment, the assessing authority ought not have proceeded with the assessment and initiated steps for realising the tax amount. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessment is not sustainable, based on the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader that there was an omission on the part of the petitioner in not raising any claim with respect to the exemption. 3. However, the factual aspect as to whether the building in question is an educational institution or not and as to whether the petitioner is entitled for exemption, are matters which need be considered by the assessing authority. Since it is not evident from Ext.P9 that any consideration in this regard was made, I am of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the 4th respondent. 3 4. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P9 assessment as well as Ext.P10 demand are hereby quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to finalise the assessment afresh, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections/claims and to produce documents if any in support of the claim. The petitioner shall also be afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. Fresh decision in this regard shall be taken by the 4th respondent as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab