IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 37872 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ELAYEDATHU IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, POST VELLACHAL, OZHUR VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 37872 of 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext. P2 assessment order passed by the first respondent assessing the building tax in respect of the building constructed by the petitioner; Ext.P5 order passed by the appellate authority/second respondent and further against Ext.P7 order passed by the revisional authority/3rd respondent. 2. The main point of challenge is that, the building constructed by the petitioner is having a total plinth area of only 269.34 M2 and hence the measurement effected by the assessing authority and confirmed by the appellate/revisional authorities is not correct or sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, challenging the assessment made by first respondent, the petitioner had earlier preferred an appeal before the second respondent and pursuant to the orders issued by the appellate authority remeasurement was ordered and a fresh assessment order was passed on 13.03.2007, showing the plinth area of the building as 290 M2 fixing the building tax and also assessing the luxury tax payable under Section 5 A. 3. Admitted fact is that, even though Ext.P2 reassessment order was passed on 13.3.2007, the petitioner chose to file Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent only on 24.1.2008. After considering the WP (C) No. 37872 of 2008 : 2 : fact that the appeal was filed beyond the maximum stipulated period of 6 months, interference was declined by the second respondent, as per Ext.P5, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P6 revision before the 3rd respondent, who confirmed the same as per Ext.P7. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Exts.P5 and P7 orders were passed by the appellate/revisional authority without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the question is whether hearing should be conducted as an empty formality, when the statute does not enable the concerned authority to entertain the proceedings. 5. Subsection 3 of Section 11 stipulates that, the appeal has to be filed within a period of 30 days of service of demand relating the assessment or the date of service of the order as the case may be. It is also stipulated that, the appellate authority may admit the appeal presented after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period, provided no such appeal shall be admitted after a period of six months from the date of service of the notice. This being the position, the extent of delay that could have been considered and condoned by the appellate authority was only for a period of 6 months and as such, WP (C) No. 37872 of 2008 : 3 : any appeal filed beyond the period of 6 months is not liable to be entertained. 6. Coming to the case in hand, Ext.P4 appeal was filed much after the period of 6 months, under which circumstances, no positive orders in favour of the petitioner/appellate could have been passed neither by the appellate authority, nor by the revisional authority. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd