IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH APRIL 2008 / 27TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13195 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- JAMIA NOORIYYA ARABIC COLLEGE, FAIZABAD, P.O. PATTIKKAD - 679 325, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.SAYYID HYDARALI SHIHAB THANGAL. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATCHERI, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.13195 of 2008-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner constructed a building. That was assessed to tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Petitioner also claimed exemption from the purview of that Act. That was, ultimately, rejected by the Government. In the meanwhile, instalments due under the assessment order were paid. The controversy, as of now, is only regarding the calculation of the interest component leviable on the basis of the assessment order. The Village WP(C)13195/2008 -: 2 :- Officer has taken a decision. That is impugned in this writ petition. 3. The issue in hand is not only one that merely involves an arithmetical calculation but is one that does not call for the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court being extended to settle the dispute on the quantum of interest. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the area will take up any representation of the petitioner against the impugned Ext.P4 and decide on the same, after calling for necessary records and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. If the petitioner files such application before the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from now, the Tahsildar will make an endeavour to finally dispose of the matter within an outer limit of three months and until then, WP(C)13195/2008 -: 3 :- the impugned demand will stand suspended. It is also clarified that if the demand includes any other claims on account of additions and thereby increase in plinth area calling for re-assessment or addition to the original assessment, those are issues to be worked out before the statutory authority. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160408