IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 16097 of 2011(J) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ REV.FR.PAUL KOTTACKAL, VICAR, ST.GEORGE CHURCH, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM P.O., COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. 3. STANDING COMMITTEE FOR APPEALS ON TAXATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. 4. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16097/2011 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.EYR 4(1)/2595/09 DD. 8/12/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMUNICATING THE DECISION DTD. 19/11/2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15/03/2010 IN WPC.7732/2010. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/03/2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT - SECRETARY. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.EYR4(1)/2595/09 DTD. 18/09/2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL AGAINST P4. P5(A): COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY FILED ALONG WITH P5. P5(B): COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED ALONG WITH P5. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EYR4(1)/2595/09 DTD. 5/10/2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.16097 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P6 proceedings of the 4th respondent and for a direction commanding the 3rd respondent to consider Exts.P5 appeal, P5(a) application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and Ext.P5(b) stay petition on merits. 2. Property tax has been levied for the parish hall constructed by the petitioner Church. The petitioner claimed benefit of exemption under Section 235 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Alternatively, the petitioner claimed reduction on tax also. However, overruling the objection, demand was confirmed. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the assessment stage, the petitioner did not get sufficient opportunity to produce relevant documents in order to substantiate the petitioner's case. 3. This Court in W.P.(C).No.7732/2010 quashed the orders impugned and directed that it will be open to the petitioners to file their objections and produce their documents ::2:: W.P.(C).No.16097 Of 2011 before the Secretary within three weeks from the date of the judgment, in which event the Secretary, Cochin Corporation, shall reconsider the demand of property tax on the petitioners with notice to the petitioners. Ext.P2 is the judgment in W.P.(C). No.7732/2010. After the disposal of W.P.(C).No.7732/2010, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 30.3.2010 before the 2nd respondent. Later, Ext.P4 notice dated 18.9.2010 was issued by the 4th respondent directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,85,471/-, which is inclusive of Library Cess of Rs.9,810/- and penal interest of Rs.79,461/-, within seven days. The petitioner preferred an appeal along with a petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and for passing an order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 demand. Ext.P5 is the copy of the appeal and Ext.P5(a) is the copy of the petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and Ext.P5(b) is the copy of the stay petition. Ext.P6 is the order dated 5.1.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the appeal stating that the Corporation was not vested with the powers to condone the delay in filing the appeal. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.16097 Of 2011 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order was passed by the Revenue Officer that there is no provision under the Kerala Municipalities Act providing filing of appeal against Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the Revenue Officer, therefore, the 3rd respondent ought to have treated it as an appeal provided under Section 510 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is vested with the powers to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is also contended by the petitioner that alternatively on a combined reading of subsections (1), (2), (6) and (7) of Section 509 it is abundantly clear that it is comprehensive and provides for appeals to be filed against all possible orders or notices that may be passed under the Act. The learned counsel pointed out that Section 510 of the Act is meant to cover all cases in which appeals are provided for under the Act including to those under subsection (1), (2), (6) and (7) r/w subsection (5) of Section 509. Ext.P6 notice was communicated to the petitioner stating that the appeal standing committee for taxation is not in a position to consider the appeal on merits since ::4:: W.P.(C).No.16097 Of 2011 there is no provision for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is pointed out that Ext.P6 notice was issued rejecting the appeal without hearing the petitioners stating that there is no provision for condoning the delay. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner as to whether the appeal standing committee for taxation has got powers to condone the delay in filing the appeal is a matter to be decided after hearing the petitioner especially when the petitioner has a case that Section 510 of the Act is meant to cover all cases in which appeals are provided for under the Act, including to those under subsection (1), (2), (6) and (7) r/w subsection (5) of Section 509. The appellate authority shall reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the 4th respondent is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application for condoning the delay in filing the ::5:: W.P.(C).No.16097 Of 2011 appeal afresh and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one month from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-