IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 36703 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MR.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE AHMED KOYA, RESIDING AT 6C BELAIR APARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. BY ADVS. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TAHSILDAR AND ASSESSING AUTHORITY (UNDER THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT), KANNUR. 670001. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNUR-II, VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.36703/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT DTD. 22.5.2010. P2:- JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.24242/2009 OF HIGH COURT OE KERALA 23.9.2009. P3:- STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT WITH DOCUMENTS UNDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT DTD. 21.10.2009. P4(SERIES):- APPLCIATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 17 OF KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT, 1975, FOR DISCOVERY. DTD. 24.12.2009. P5:- COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 24.12.2009. P6:- ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 9 (2) 9(4) OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT AND PROCEEDINGS. DTD. 29.5.2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES R1(a):- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. R1(b):- COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. R1(c):- COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.36703 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 assessment order under the KGST Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by challenging the assessment order despite the appellate remedy available because the assessing authority has not fully complied with the directions in Ext.P2 judgment. He submits that in Ext.P2 judgment, this Court specifically directed the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the owners of the individual apartments to produce necessary documents and also an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner submits that although in Ext.P6 assessment order it has been stated that notices have been issued to the other 79 owners of the apartments, they have not been so served with any notice. The petitioner submits that others are not aggrieved as they are not mulcted with any liability and the entire liability has W.P.(C).NO.36703 OF 2010 : 2 : been fastened on the petitioner. The petitioner submits that truth of his contentions can be verified only by ascertaining from the other apartment owners as to whether the flats are separately constructed and owned. He also contends that Exts.P3 and P5 documents which the petitioner has produced and Ext.P4 application for production of documents has also not been considered. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In so far as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against Ext.P6 assessment order, I am not inclined to interfere with the same at present. According to me, all the contentions which have been raised in this writ petition have to be raised by the petitioner in the appeal to be filed challenging Ext.P6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 3. If the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P6 order within one month from today, the same shall be accepted as an appeal filed within time and if the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.2,50,000/=, that shall be accepted as due compliance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. W.P.(C).NO.36703 OF 2010 : 3 : While considering the appeal, the specific contentions raised by the petitioner as noted above and other contentions of the petitioner shall be considered by the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall go through the assessment records to see whether the statement in Ext.P6 that other 79 owners were served with notice is correct or not. The contention of the petitioner regarding Exts.P3 to P5 shall also be specifically considered and answered. Till orders are passed as directed above, the interim order passed in this writ petition would continue. Sd/= S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl