IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12536 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREE NARAYANA BHAKTHA PARIPALANA YOGAM, (REG.NO.2/1124ME), KOORKANCHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.K.C.PRAKASAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12536 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P1, P5, P8 and P9 which are the proceedings under the Kerala Building Tax Act passed by the Assessing authority, Appellate authority and Revisional Authority in respect of the building owned by the petitioner. The petitioner had originally sought for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act and on reference of the issue for the decision of the Government under Section 3(2), the same was considered and rejected by the Government as borne by Ext.P2 order dated 12.5.1998, which was subjected to challenge in O.P.23531/98, leading to Ext.P3 final verdict passed on 9.08.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court declining interference, as the said relief was not pressed before the Bench, but for confining the relief to have it reassessed. It was in the said circumstance, that an order was passed by the Division Bench observing that, if the petitioner was aggrieved of the assessment order passed by the Tahsildar/assessing authority, the petitioner was at liberty to W.P.(C) No.12536/2010 2 file a statutory appeal within 30 days from the date of the judgment. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal and after considering the same, observing that the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents to substantiate the case, despite granting opportunity on many an occasion, the appeal was dismissed vide Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent on 27.10.2009. 3. Challenging the above order, the petitioner approached the Revisional Authority by filing Ext.P6 Revision Petition. The petitioner also satisfied the admitted liability in the meanwhile so as to sustain the proceedings. Finally, interference was declined by the Revisional Authority as well, vide Ext.P9 order dated 12.3.2010, observing that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner in producing the relevant documents, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. W.P.(C) No.12536/2010 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basic challenge raised by the petitioner is with regard to the actual 'rate of tax' payable, along with other incidental aspects. This being the position, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority were not justified in having simply rejected appeal/revision vide Exts.P5 and P7 and ought to have considered the matter on merits. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly, as to the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to the actual rate of tax payable on the basis of the relevant provisions under the Statute as existed then, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent with reference to the actual facts and figures on the basis of the materials very much available in the file. 7. In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent/Appellate Authority and Ext.P9 order passed W.P.(C) No.12536/2010 4 by the 1st respondent/Revisional Authority are set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent for considering it afresh including as to the disputed rates of tax and extended liability. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent forthwith, on which event, Ext.P4 appeal shall be taken back to the file and fresh orders shall be passed, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with liberty to produce requisite documents, if any, and the proceedings shall be finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps