IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 27905 of 2007(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- KIZHAKKATHPARAMBIL ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. MUHAMMED,AGED 53 YEARS, ABDUL AZEEZ FURNITURE & SAW MILL, PAINKANNOOR P.O., VALANCHERRY, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27905/2007 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/07/2001. P3: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.997/2002 DTD. 29/05/2002. P6: COPY OF THE EXPARTE ORDER DTD. 1/03/2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6(A): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW PETITION DTD. 28/03/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/12/2005 REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.19/08/2006. P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 13/08/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A2-1021/2004 KS DTD.27/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE D.F.O., NILAMBUR DIVISION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 27905 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders of the Government rejecting the petitioner's application for exemption from payment of building tax, on the ground that the petitioner's building is a workshop. 2. This Court had considered the matter on 19-9-2007 and passed the following order: “This is a case where petitioner by misrepresenting facts, got a direction from this Court to refer the claim for exemption from building tax in respect of a marriage hall for decision by Government under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The building in question is found by Tahsildar on inspection as a pucca “Kalyana Mandapam” used for marriages and Tahsildar has recorded in Ext. P3 that several marriages and functions are conducted in the building which the petitioner is letting out on collection of rent. Obviously the building is not eligible for any exemption and the petitioner's claim that it is a workshop is absolute falsehood. If the petitioner wants to press the dispute on the factual issue, petitioner should be willing to take out a commission. Counsel for the petitioner prima facie did not agree for appointment of a commission. Petitioner is therefore directed to file an affidavit in this Court stating true facts, particularly with reference to findings in Ext. P6 that building is a Kalyana Mandapam. If the petitioner wants to deny this through an affidavit, petitioner is free to do so, but if this Court based on commission report or enquiry, finds that petitioner's statement is false, necessarily petitioner will have to face consequences for filing false affidavit in court. W.P will be considered after petitioner files affidavit as above.” The petitioner now submits that he is not pressing his contentions now and in view of the financial crisis faced by the petitioner, the petitioner may be permitted to pay the building tax demanded in instalments. 2. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the W.P.C. No. 27905/07 -: 2 :- outstanding building tax amount with interest in 10 equal monthly instalments starting from 7-9-2009. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day after 6th of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments in time without default, coercive proceedings for recovery of the building tax shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default of payment of any one instalment, it would be open to the respondents to take appropriate steps to recover the entire amount in a lump sum, without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/