IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8330 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GIRIJAKUMARI AMMA, KRISHNAMANDIRAM, KP III/136A, MANGAD P.O., KARIKODU, KOLLAM-691 015. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO TAXES, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE REVENUE OFFICER, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8330 OF 2008 (N) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P9, by which property tax has been fixed in respect of the residential house constructed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner submits that she constructed a residential house having an area of 233m2. Ext.P1 is the building permit and Ext.P2 shows that the revenue authorities have fixed Rs.8,100/- towards Building Tax. Petitioner submits that for the purpose of property tax, annual rental value was initially fixed by the Revenue Inspector at Rs.200+14,400. It is so seen in Ext.P3. However, without stating anything as to why the said rate was not acceptable or incorrect, the Secretary of the Corporation enhanced the same to Rs.1000+ 36,000/-. 3. Based on the estimation so done by the Secretary, Ext.P4 assessment notice was issued, against which the petitioner filed Ext.P5 revision. The revisional authority reduced the amount fixed by the Secretary to Rs.900+34,800/-. Based on the revisional order, petitioner was issued Ext.P6 notice of demand. WPC 8330/08 :2 : Thereupon, after remitting 50% of the tax due, petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent inspected the premises and was satisfied that the amount fixed was on the higher side. However, having regard to the Government order directing that maximum reduction that could be given was 20%, 2nd respondent reduced annual rental value fixed to Rs.720+27,840/- as per Ext.P8 order. On the basis of Ext.P8, Ext.P9 demand notice was issued requiring the petitioner to remit tax of Rs.3998+ Rs.200 towards Library Cess. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed with the prayers mentioned above. 4. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that although reduction has been given by the revisional authority and also by the appellate authority, since the fixation by the Secretary was without any basis, the same is arbitrary, and if so, the revisional order and appellate order are also equally vitiated. Counsel made reference to Ext.P12, the information obtained by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this document evidences that buildings which are more conveniently located and WPC 8330/08 :3 : larger in size were levied tax at comparatively reduced rates. It is stated that having regard to the location of the building, the rent that is likely to be earned, materials used and other relevant factors, the annual rental value fixed and consequential tax levied are exorbitant and illegal. 5. On the other hand, standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that annual rental value has been fixed based on the rent that the building is likely to earn having regard to the materials used, location of the building and other relevant factors. It is stated that the amount so fixed by the Secretary has been reduced by both the revisional authority and the appellate authority, and therefore, no grounds have been made out to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Although it is a fact that reduction has been given by the revisional and appellate authorities, still it is a reality that Ext.P12 prima facie shows that buildings having atleast comparable plinth area have been imposed lesser amount of tax. Neither Ext.P12 nor Ext.P3 discloses the basis of such fixation, WPC 8330/08 :4 : and therefore, it is a matter for the Secretary of the Corporation to examine and decide whether, in comparison, the Annual rental value fixed is on the higher side. It is also seen from Ext.P3 that the Revenue Inspector had initially fixed a much lower amount, but however, the same has been revised by the Secretary without assigning any reason. The order does not disclose that the Secretary has atleast inspected the building to be satisfied that it deserves a higher annual rental value. 7. On the whole, I am satisfied that the annual rental value fixed in respect of the building prima facie is on the higher side. Therefore, I feel the matter needs reconsideration by the Secretary himself. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P4, P6, P8 and P9. The Secretary of the 1st respondent Corporation is directed to inspect the building of the petitioner, assess the annual rental value on comparable standards with other buildings in the area, and if necessary, refix the annual rental value and pass fresh orders levying tax due from the petitioner. Once orders are passed as above, the amount that the WPC 8330/08 :5 : petitioner has already paid will be given credit, and if any further amount is due, it will be open to the respondents to realise the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp