IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 10639 of 2004(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M/S. SIEWERT AND DHOLAKIA LTD.,A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DHOLAKIA HOUSE 26/246, K.P.K. MENON ROAD, W/ISLAND ROAD, KOCHI-682 003, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS VIKRAM DHOLAKIA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRAN PUZHANKARA SRI.SIBA MARTIN SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE FORTCOCHIN, KOCHI-1 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.A.SALIM – R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10639/2004 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3589 OF 1978 DTD. 30/12/1978 OF THE COCHIN SRO EXECUTED BY DR.JOSEPH VARGHESE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.231 OF 1989 DTD.31/01/1969 OF THE COCHIN SRO EXECUTED BY V.V.JOSEPH IN FAVOUR OF JOSEPH VARGHESE. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOTICE NO.B3-10682/01 DTD. 25/04/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER NO.B3-10682/01 DTD. 16/05/2002 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 24/05/2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF PROPERTY TAX EXTRACT OF THE PERIOD 1972-77. EXT.P7: COPY OF LETTER NO.B3-10682/01 DTD. 4/01/2003 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 9/01/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 22/03/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF REPLY DTD. 9/04/2003 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF PROPERTY TAX EXTRACT FOR THE PERIOD 1967-72. EXT.P12: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.B3-10682/2001 DTD. 15/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF L.P.DHOLAKIA. EXT.P13: COPY OF POST CARD DTD. 13/3/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO L.P.DHOLAKIA. EXT.P14: COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT NO.093861 DTD. 16/04/2003 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER-COMPANY FOR RS.1,048/-. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) NO.10639 of 2004-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P9 as one without jurisdiction. As per Ext.P9, the petitioner has been asked to remit an amount of Rs.26,100/- as building tax. 2. The contentions raised shortly are that the plot of land and the building therein was purchased by the petitioner as per sale deed dated 30.12.1978 (Ext.P1). The petitioner is carrying on business as an exporter of tea. It is further averred that the very same building and the land were being occupied by them from the year 1967 as tenant from one Shri P.V. Joseph. The document of title in their favour is produced as Ext.P2. When Ext.P3 demand notice was issued, the petitioner appeared and requested for time. Ext.P6 is the true copy of the property tax extract relied upon by the petitioner. Ultimately, by Ext.P9 he was found liable for the amount in question. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been pointed out that for various reasons the contentions of the petitioner cannot be sustianed, as the petitioner had failed to produce -2- sufficient evidence to show that the building was constructed prior to the crucial date, i.e. 1.4.1973. 3. An order rejecting reasons for rejecting the contentions of the petitioner has not been passed by the respondent while finalising the assessment. Even though different reasons have been pointed out in the counter affidavit, those are not reflected in the order passed by the competent authority. The petitioner has not been informed of the reasons for rejection of his contentions also. Hence, the reasons now sought to be supplemented in the counter affidavit cannot be looked into. In that view of the matter, Ext.P9 is set aside. The respondents will issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and offer a personal hearing in the matter as well as sufficient opportunity to produce whatever evidence available to them. Final orders shall be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/