IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23934 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST, KANCHAS COMPLEX, OPP.INDOOR STADIUM, CALICUT 673 004 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORE, DR.SUDHA ANIL. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTAMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE THAHSILDAR, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. 3. MR.N. RAJAN, THAHASILDAR, KOYILANDY KOZHIKODE. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 23934 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th August , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has got a claim that the building constructed by the petitioner is mainly being used for charitable and educational purposes, which is liable to be exempted by virtue of Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, on receipt of the notice issued in this regard, approached the assessing authority on the stipulated date itself, but the officer was not available on that day and the petitioner was made to approach the said authority again , but no specific posting was intimated to the petitioner thereafter. The petitioner could not submit the necessary claim with reference to Section 3(1)(b) and it was without any further notice or intimation to the petitioner, that the proceedings were finalised by the assessing authority/second respondent, passing Ext.P3. The learned Counsel submits that, on receipt of Ext. P3 , the position was brought to the notice of the assessing authority by W.P.(C) No. 23934 OF 2010 2 submitting Ext. P4 , which however was replied by the said authority by sending Ext.P5, stating that, if at all the petitioner was aggrieved of in any manner, the petitioner had to file appeal or revision as provided under the relevant provisions of law. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. True, the statute contemplates filing of appeal or revision before the concerned authority, if at all the party is aggrieved by the assessment order. But here the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 3(1)(b).. 5. The petitioner had got serious contentions, particularly as to the course pursued by the assessing authority which made this Court, when the matter was dealt with on the previous occasion, to instruct the learned Government Pleader to make available the relevant files, which in fact is placed today for perusal. After going through the contents of the file, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered, particularly in view of the nature of the contentions raised. If the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of exemption, there is no point in relegating the petitioner to pursue the remedy by way of appeal, W.P.(C) No. 23934 OF 2010 3 after satisfying the first quarterly installment/payment by way of statutory deposit and thereafter to claim for refund, once exemption is granted by the Government. 6. In the above circumstance, Exts.P3 and P5 are set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider Ext. P4 as the objection/claim preferred by the petitioner seeking for the benefit of exemption under Section 3(1)(b) and the same shall be referred for the decision of the Government/first respondent as provided under Section 3(2) of the Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of such reference , the first respondent is directed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months thereafter. Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk