IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7478 of 2007(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. N.JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.M.K.NARAYANASWAMI, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, C.P.UMMER ROAD, KOCHI-35. 2. N.ANAND, S/O.M.K.NARAYANASWAMI, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, C.P.UMMER ROAD, KOCHI-35. 3. N.SIVARAM, S/O.M.K.NARAYANASWAMI, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, C.P.UMMER ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES), TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7478 OF 2007 M ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance in this writ petition is against Exts. P8, P8(a) and P8(b) order of assessment and notice of demand issued by the 2nd respondent in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. In this case, a property was settled in the name of the petitioners by their father and the petitioners have jointly constructed a building. According to the petitioners, since the building though by structure is one unit, was constructed for separate occupation using individual contribution is therefore liable to be assessed as individual and separate units. According to the petitioners, the legal position as above stands concluded in their favour by the judgment of this court in Bavasons Constructions (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007(3) KLT 101). 2. Since it is the specific case of the petitioners that the WPC 7478/07 :2 : buildings were constructed utilising their individual contribution and that this fact can be proved by referring to their documents and accounts, I am inclined to give the petitioners an opportunity to prove their contentions as above, particularly in the light of the judgment referred to above. 3. Accordingly, Exts.P8, P8(a) and P8(b) will sand set aside and the matter will be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent will issue notice to the petitioners giving them an opportunity to prove their contentions as noticed above. It will be open to the petitioners to produce evidence in support of their contentions and on conclusion of the enquiry, the 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders. Needless to say that the remittance already made will be adjusted towards their liability, if any, and in case it is held that that they have no liability, the same will be refunded to the petitioners. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp