IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 10888 of 2006(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.S.SREENIVASAN, YESODA, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SRI.N.SASI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY, KONGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. 2. KONGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KONGAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V.PRAMOD ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SRI.A.V.RAVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No. 10888 of 2006 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the reassessment invoice issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner dated 22.9.2004. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the letter dated 30.9.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the receipt dated 11.10.2004. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the Order dated 9.12.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5 :- Copy of Memorandum of Revision filed by the petitioner before the Local Self Government Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the Order dated 11.4.2005 passed by the Local Self Government Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the assessment of property tax in respect of the 'Kalyanamandapam' constructed by the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax and the Surcharge thereon) Rules 1996 is correct or proper and whether the contention of the petitioner that the liability has to be fixed with reference to 'Rule 4' of the aforesaid Rules is correct or not. 2. The factual position as discussed in the impugned orders is not a subject matter of dispute. The petitioner constructed the 'Kalyanamandapam' years back and since the building happened to be dilapidated, it required reconstruction, which was effected and the tax liability was W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2006 -: 2 :- assessed based on the data furnished by the petitioner. Before the reconstruction, the tax liability was fixed as Rs.2,927/- per annum, which was being paid by the petitioner. After the reconstruction the petitioner submitted necessary return before the 2nd respondent, estimating value of the property as Rs.30,00,000/-. In furtherance to the steps for refixation of tax liability, the matter was considered by the 2nd respondent and it was refixed as Rs.10,206/- as per Exts.P1 and P2 and the petitioner was required to satisfy the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee, who dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner preferred Ext.P5 revision petition before the concerned Tribunal. After hearing the revision petitioner, the Tribunal passed Ext.P6 order, where it was observed that there was some irregularity in fixing the liability and that it ought to have been fixed with reference to 'Rule 6(4)' and not with reference to 'Rule 4', on which event, the tax liability would have been Rs.30,000/- per annum while the present liability has been fixed only as Rs.9,720/-. W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2006 -: 3 :- Accordingly interference was declined in the revision petition; which is subjected to further challenge before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no proper discussion of the material facts with reference to the relevant rules and that the lapse on the part of the Panchayat in finalization proceedings has not been properly evaluated by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P6 order. It is also asserted that the liability should have been fixed under 'Rule 4' and not under 'Rule 6(4)'; which hence is sought to be interfered by this Court. 4. Going by the scheme of the statute, the assessment of the tax liability, normally it is as provided under Rule 4. But with regard to the fixation of tax liability in respect of the buildings let out 'on daily rent' like 'Kalyanamandapam', it has to be fixed on the basis of amount collected as 'daily rent', in the manner as specified in 'Rule 6(4)'; ie; by deducting 50% of the total rent collected towards electricity, furniture and service charges and reckoning '100 days' in a year, as the period for which the building is let out during the year. Since W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2006 -: 4 :- the building in question is admittedly a 'Kalyanamandapam' the proper course to be followed is as provided under 'Rule 6(4)', as clearly observed by the Tribunal in Ext.P6 order. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has admitted that the 'Kalyanamandapam' is being let out for a 'daily rent' of Rs.10,000/-. Since the said admitted factual position does not require to be proved, the only question is the quantum of tax payable, on pursuing the course as stipulated under 'Rule 6(4)' by deducting 50% of the rent collected towards the expenses under different heads and multiplying the remainder by 100 days. On following the said course, as discussed by the Tribunal in Ext.P6, the actual tax liability would be Rs.30,000/- and as such, there cannot be any valid or sustainable grievance for the petitioner, against fixation of the tax liability by the 2nd respondent Panchayat at Rs.9,720/- as it now stands. In the above circumstance, this Court does not find any tenable ground to call for interference on Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2006 -: 5 :- dismissed on merits. Taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to effect lump sum payment of the arrears, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments. The first of which shall be effected on or before 10th of November, 2010 and the rest shall be paid on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. It is also made clear that if any default is made in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further steps for recovering the entire amount in a lump. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Jvt