IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 18090 of 2004(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JACOB CHERIAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. P.C. CHERIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PADINHAREKKARA RUBBER AND PLASTICS PVT. LTD., POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 2. K.Y. EASOW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. YOHANNANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, KULANKARA RUBBERS, POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 3. C.P. JOLLY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ABJO PLASTICS (P) LTD., POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 4. P.T. MATHEN @ MATHEN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. PUNNOSE MATHEN, PROPRIETOR, ALMA WOOD INDUSTRIES, POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 5. VALSAMMA SEBASTIAN, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. SCARIA SEBASTIAN, MAMS RUBBER INDUSTRY, POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 6. DILIP T. PHILIP, S/O. T. PHILIP THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, AISWARYA RUBBER INDUSTRIES, POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTIRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 7. KORAH ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM KORAH, PROPRIETOR, VAZAHAKKALA RUBBER WORKS, POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 8. A.J. JOHNY, S/O. C.T. ABRAHAM, AREEKKATTEL RUBBERS, POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. WPC 18090/2004 9. SHIRLY ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O. P. SAMUEL ABRAHAM, PARTNER, AERO PACK, POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. 10. SUSAN MATHEW, W/O. K.K. MATHUKUTTY, PROPRIETRIX, KULATHINKAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES POOVANTHURUTHU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH SRI.KARJET KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PANACHIKKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANACHIKKADU, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARATMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP FOR R1 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 18090/04 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NUMBER G.O. (MS) NO.297/70/ID, INDUSTRIES DEPATMENT, DATED 24.8.1970 AND APPENDED RULES. EXT.P2 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO JOJI SEBASTIAN. EXT,P5 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P6 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P7 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT.P8 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXT.P9 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER. EXT.P10 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO AERO PACK. EXT.P11 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO AERO PACK. EXT.P12 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 18090 OF 2004-C ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge Exts.P2 to P12 notices issued to them, demanding property tax in relation to their buildings and land appurtenant thereto. They say, the aforementioned notices are issued under Rule 14 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996, which were not preceded by issuance of bills under Rule 8 of the said Rules. They further submit, some of the demands are barred by limitation also. But, I find that demand of tax can be challenged in appeal before the Standing Committee under Section 276 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Against the decision of the Standing Committee, there is a further revision to the Tribunal also. In view of the above position, it is unnecessary for this Court to consider the validity of the impugned notices, in this writ petition. All the contentions of the petitioners against those notices can be considered by the Standing Committee and thereafter by the Tribunal. In view of the above position, this writ petition is dismissed. But, the period this WPC 18090/04 2 writ petition was pending before this Court shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation, if any, in invoking the appellate remedy. The amount deposited by the petitioners as per the direction of this Court shall be adjusted towards the final liability, if any, found against them. 7th October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/