IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25075 of 2007(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SECRETARY, DE PAUL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, DE PAUL NAGAR, ANGAMALY SOUTH-683 573. BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.25075/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 6.7.07 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE FORM -II RETURN ISSUED FROM THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.7.07 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.25075 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 assessment made by the 3rd respondent imposing an amount of Rs.2,07,000/- as building tax under the Building Tax Act 1975. According to the petitioner, in the return filed as Ext.P2 they have intimated the assessing authority that no tax is payable in view of Government Order No.38249/SLMC/03, it being an educational institution. According to the petitioner, once there is an intimation that the building belongs to an educational institution and request has been made in Ext.P2, the competent authority was bound to refer the matter to the Government. No such reference was made and therefore the demand is bad in law. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the matter is pending before the Government and the Government has asked for a detailed report and that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard by the Government on 03/11/2007. Whether the Government has disposed of the matter is not known. W.P.C.No.25075 of 2007 2 3. Under these circumstances, there is no necessity to further refer the matter to the Government as the reference has already been made as cited in the counter affidavit. 4. In view of the fact that Ext.P4 demand is issued without a reference being made under Section 3, it is bad in law and hence I hereby set aside Ext.P4. It is for the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for allowing exemption from payment of building tax and only after such an order, further demand can be made. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.25075 of 2007 3 W.P.C.No.25075 of 2007 4 THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J. Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011