IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6850 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- QUILON HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.SREEKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, PALAKKADU CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, KERALA CHALAKKUZHYLANE, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON 17/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.6850 OF 2010 (E) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner company own a five star hotel namely The Beach Orchid. There are three buildings, bearing Nos.1259/863- A,1260/863-B and 1261/863-C in Ward No.XIX of the first respondent. Municipality assessed property tax at Rs.9,78,469/-, Rs.1,723/- and Rs.52,829/- in respect of the aforesaid buildings. It is stated that the petitioner filed revision before the first respondent and by order dated 17.3.2009 the assessment was completed. 2. Appeal was filed to the Municipal Council and the Council by Ext.P1 order dated 22.12.2009 reduced the property tax to Rs.8,80,622/-,Rs.1,551/-, Rs.47,525/- respectively. Against the appellate order, petitioner filed revision before the Tribunal, a copy of which is Ext.P2. The Tribunal by order passed on 22.2.2010 returned the revision, stating that Section 11 is not properly complied with. It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed praying for quashing the order dated 22.2.2010 referred to above and to direct the Tribunal to take back Ext.P2 WPC.No. 6850/2010 :2 : revision and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that so far they have deposited an amount of Rs.9,43,246/- and that in terms of Ext.P1 appellate order, the total amount payable is only Rs.9,29,718/-. Therefore the maximum liability as at present being Rs.9,29,718/- and since the petitioner has remitted a total amount of Rs.9,43,246/-, petitioner contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is incorrect and illegal. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that as on date, total amount due from the petitioner including interest is Rs.9,37,591.24. 4. I have considered the submissions made. 5. The appeal which resulted in Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent was filed under Section 509(2) of the Municipality Act. The revision filed before the Tribunal is under Section 509(8) of the Act. Section 509(11) provides that no appeal or revision shall be filed against the levy of tax, if the tax shown in the demand notice has not been paid. Therefore in order to maintain the appeal before the first respondent, the petitioner should have paid the entire tax demanded. The tax WPC.No. 6850/2010 :3 : demanded from the petitioner at that stage was Rs.10,33,021/-. The appeal should not have been entertained by the first respondent since the petitioner did not deposit the said amount. Even as on date, the petitioner has only remitted Rs.9,43,246/-. Therefore the fact that in a defective appeal, the appellate authority has reduced the tax due from the petitioner does not mean that the liability of the petitioner to remit the amount demanded as required under Section 509(11) of the Act stands modified or reduced because of the appellate order passed. In that view of the matter the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having passed the order dated 22.10.2009. 6. However, fact remains that the appeal was entertained by the appellate authority and the tax assessed has been reduced. Corporation also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.9,43,246/- and even according to the petitioner, the amount that is due from the petitioner is only Rs.9,37,591.24. Therefore, what is paid by the petitioner is in excess of the tax now due. In such circumstances though the Tribunal cannot be faulted for the order it has passed, still ends of justice require that the petitioner's revision should be WPC.No. 6850/2010 :4 : considered on merits without insisting on the petitioner remitting the balance amount, which is actually not due from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to direct the Tribunal to accept Ext.P2 revision filed by the petitioner and consider the same with notice to the parties and pass orders in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tribunal to take back Ext.P2 revision filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 award and consider the same with notice to the parties and pass orders in accordance with law. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/