IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29907 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. BEKAL RECREATION CENTRE PVT. LTD., REPRESENTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. KUNHIKANNAN.T.V. "LOVE DALE" PADaNNAKKAD, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVNUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG TALUK, HOSDURG, KASARAGODE. BY SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rkc C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.29907 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of assessment issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Petitioner is a private limited company, which had entered Ext.P1 lease agreement with 35 persons, by virtue of which properties described in A- Schedule of that agreement was taken from the respective owners for long term lease, along with certain buildings situated therein. On the basis of the lease, the petitioner had put up various additional constructions like, halls, swimming pools, play grounds, cottages, etc: in the property. As such, petitioner is the owner of some of the buildings situated within the premises, whereas with respect to some other buildings the petitioner is only a lessee. 2. When the 2nd respondent had initiated proceedings for assessment Ext.P4 notice was issued requiring the petitioner to submit return. Subsequently the Assessing Authority had obtained a report from the Village Officer as well as from the Revenue Inspector. It is evident from Ext.P6 notice that the petitioner was called for a personal hearing on 16.1.2009. A further notice issued as per Ext.P8 reveals that after ascertainment of the plinth area the petitioner was requested again to appear for personal hearing W.P.(C).29907/09-G 2 scheduled on 18.3.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.3.2009 counsel of the petitioner appeared in pursuance of the notice and submitted a petition as evidenced from Ext.P9, seeking one month time for filing statement and for producing necessary documents. But without any further response Ext.P10 order was issued. According to the petitioner all the buildings situated within the property has been considered as a single unit and the entire plinth area is assessed against the petitioner, which is totally unsustainable. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P10 it is noticed that the same is issued in a printed format even without filling up the relevant entries or even without scoring off the irrelevant options. It is not discernible from Ext.P10 as to whether the petitioner has raised any objection against completion of the assessment as proposed and as to whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner. It does not reveal anything to the effect that the petitioner failed to respond to any notice issued in pursuance of the assessment. Going by Ext.P10 the same can only be termed as a cryptic order, passed on total non- application of mind, without adverting to any of the objections or contentions of the petitioner. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents pointed out that eventhough adjournment was sought for by the petitioner as evidenced from Ext.P9, as early as on 3.4.2009, there W.P.(C).29907/09-G 3 is nothing to show that the petitioner had produced any documents thereafter till Ext.P10 order was issued on 17.9.2009. 5. However, it is trite law that the assessing authorities in physical statutes are exercising quasi-judicial functions, while completing assessments. In various settled legal precedents of this court as well as the hon'ble apex court, it is made clear that the assessment orders imposing any tax liability should reflect proper application of mind and such orders should reveal consideration of objections or advertence to the contentions if any raised by the assessee. Ext.P10 order, as I observed, is a totally non-speaking order and it does not reflect any application of mind. Therefore Ext.P10 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Under the above circumstances Ext.P10 order is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to compete assessment afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents and after affording opportunity of personal hearing. Fresh orders in this regard may be issued as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb