IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7525 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.KURUVILLA, NEDUMPARAMBIL, NADUKUNNU MURI, PATHANPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 013. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM.P.O., PIN-690 567. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM.P.O.,-690 567. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7525 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Assessment completed under Section 5 and 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, with respect to residential building of the petitioner, was subject matter of an earlier writ petition filed before this court as WP(C).9268/2006. In Ext.P1 Judgment this court remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent with the specific direction to verify the factual position by conducting inspection of the building and to ascertain the plinth area of the building, after excluding the car porch as well as place if any kept for storage of firewood. Exhibit P2 order of assessment and Ext.P3 notice of demand were issued subsequently, purportedly in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P1 Judgment. The 2nd respondent found that the plinth area of the building excluding the car porch is 310.41 Sq.M. and the building is not having any separate area for W.P.(C).7525/11 -2- storage of firewood. Against Ext.P2 and P3, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the 1st respondent as evidenced from Ext.P4. It is stated that the petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards Building Tax and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards Luxury Tax, pertaining to the year 2008-09. Petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice now issued as per Ext.P6 for realisation of the balance amount, without considering pendency of the appeal. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the basis of instructions, submitted that Ext.P4 appeal is not in proper form and that the requirements under Rule 14 of the Plinth Area Rules has not been complied with. Hence there is no validly constituted appeal pending before the 1st respondent. 3. I take note of the fact that the petitioner had already approached the statutory appellate authority. Hence I am not proposing to enter upon the merits of the assessment. Interest of justice will be served if the appellate authority is directed to consider the matter and to take appropriate decision. W.P.(C).7525/11 -3- 4. The petitioner will be at liberty to cure defects if any in Ext.P4 appeal and to cause the appeal properly registered before the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the defects in the appeal is cured and if it is properly registered before the 1st respondent, then the petitioner can seek appropriate interim relief regarding collection and recovery of the balance tax amount due. Needless to say that while passing such an interim order the 2nd respondent shall take note of the payments already made. 5. In order to facilitate the petitioner to cure the defects if any in Ext.P4 appeal and to seek appropriate interim relief from the 1st respondent, realisation of the balance amount of tax due under Ext.P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb True copy P.A to Judge