IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33632 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.A.ABDUL LATHEEF,S/O.LATE AHAMMED, VARIKKADAN HOUSE,PALLIKAVALA,MUDICKAL.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683547. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 547. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER,MARAMBILLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 542. 3. TAHASILDAR,KUNNATHUNAD,PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-683 542. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682021. 6. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTELD BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33632 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is running an Automobile Workshop, a Small Scale Industrial unit. In respect of the building, building tax was assessed and pursuant to which the third respondent has issued a notice dated 11.12.2007 to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his objections thereon and thereupon Ext.P3 order of assessment was issued by the Tahsildar directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/-. Ext.P3 order was challenged before the fourth respondent in statutory appeal. As a pre-condition for filing the appeal, the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.15000/-. The same is evident from Ext.P4. Later, the matter was disposed of by the fourth respondent virtually remitting the matter back to the Tahsildar as per order dated 8.5.2008. As per the said order the third respondent was also directed to enquire into whether the petitioner has been running an industry as SSI unit and to report the same for the purpose of forwarding the files before the Government for necessary follow up action. Subsequently, instead of complying with the directions in terms of the specific directions thereunder the third respondent passed Ext.P5 order. As per Ext.P5, it WP(C).No.33632/2010 2 was found that the activities going on in the petitioner's unit are not in terms of Ext.P1 certificate and therefore, he is ineligible for exemption under the building tax. That apart, the third respondent revised the assessment as per Ext.P6 and issued a fresh demand notice requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.95,400/-. Thereupon, the petitioner was constrained to take up the matter in Ext.P8 appeal before the fourth respondent. However, the fourth respondent confirmed the order passed by the third respondent in Ext.P6, as per Ext.P9. The petitioner has unsuccessfully attempted a review against the said order. Ext.P11 is the order passed in Ext.P10 review petition. Against Ext.P6 and P9 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 revision petition before the fifth respondent. It is still pending. Pending the said revision petition, the assessing authority has taken steps to effect recovery based on the assessment and reassessment orders. It is in the said circumstance that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in fact, the third respondent instead of passing orders regarding assessment ought to have forwarded the matter to the 6th respondent in terms of the decision of this Court in Victory Paper and Boards (India) Ltd. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others ( ILR 2000 (2) Kerala 592). In terms of the said decision the authority to consider whether exemption WP(C).No.33632/2010 3 can be granted or not is vested with the Government. It is also relevant to note in this context that as per order dated 8.5.2008 the fourth respondent had, in fact, directed the third respondent only to enquire into the question whether the petitioner is running an SSI Unit solely for the purpose of forwarding a report to the Government for passing appropriate orders. Considering the aforesaid position obtained from the order dated 8.5.2008 as also in the light of the decision reported in ILR 2000 (2) Kerala 592 (supra) I am of the view that the orders passed by respondents 3 and 4 are unsustainable. In fact, the third respondent should have referred the matter before the 6th respondent for appropriate action under section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Exts.P3, P5, P6, P7, P9 and P13 are liable to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the fifth respondent to send back the entire files to the third respondent to enable him to forward the entire records before the 6th respondent in terms of section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act for appropriate consideration. The fifth respondent shall do so within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The third respondent shall in turn forward the entire files before the sixth respondent in terms of section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act within a period of one month thereafter. On receipt of the WP(C).No.33632/2010 4 application for exemption together with records, the 6th respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of three months, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge