IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20576 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LINCY RAPHEL, D/O.RAPHEL, MEKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ASHTAMICHIRA P.O., VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, MALA. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, MALA, THRISSUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.20576 of 2010-V ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P7 order passed by the assessing authority, whereby tax liability under the Kerala Building Tax Act has been fixed by the first respondent. The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition shows that, Ext.P2 notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to the steps for finalisation of the assessment proceedings; on receipt of which, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply. However, without any regard to the contents of Ext.P3, the first respondent finalised the assessment and issued Ext.P4 order, which was subjected to challenge by filing W.P(C) No.28354 of 2009, leading to Ext.P5 judgment. 2. Obviously, the basic point of dispute raised before this Court was that, the building was constructed by the petitioner prior to the appointed day ie. 10.2.1992. This being the position, as per Section 5(2) of the Act, the construction of the building, which is completed prior to the appointed day; but the assessment of which W.P(C) No.20576 of 2010-V 2 has not been completed, such building can be assessed on the basis of plinth area. But the said provision was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sherly V. State of Kerala (2006(2) KLT 306 ) and it was in the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment, for the reason that, it was not a 'speaking order'; directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and with specific reference to the date of construction of the building and as to whether the petitioner is liable to be assessed under the 'Plinth Area Rules' or under the 'Capital Value' method, which was prevailing prior to 1992. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, Ext.P6 notice was issued and the petitioner appeared for hearing. After considering the matter, the first respondent passed Ext.P7 order, whereby it was held that, no document was produced by the petitioner to substantiate the alleged construction of the building prior to the 'appointed day' ie. 10.2.1992 and that the only record caused to be produced was the 'building tax assessment register' of the concerned Panchayat pertaining to the period from '1993 to 1998'. It was in the said circumstances that the proceedings were W.P(C) No.20576 of 2010-V 3 completed and the liability was sought to be cleared as stipulated. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though Ext.P7 order was passed on 30.3.2010, a demand notice as prescribed is still to be issued to the petitioner and that the petitioner is very much entitled to have the right of appeal against the impugned proceedings, to be preferred within the specified time from the date of service of demand notice as provided under the relevant Rules. The petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive steps stated as being pursued in the meanwhile, which hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition 6. After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no interference is warranted with regard to the course pursued by the first respondent, in so far as, it is in conformity with the mandate given vide Ext.P5 judgment. With regard to the right of appeal, this Court does not express anything on merit and it is for the petitioner to substantiate the position before the appropriate authority, as to the non service of the demand notice and such other vital particulars, in accordance with law. The first respondent is directed to serve a copy of the demand notice pursuant to Ext.P7, to W.P(C) No.20576 of 2010-V 4 the petitioner, if the same is yet to be served, as prescribed forthwith, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed; without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab