IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26610 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.GEORGE ABRHAM, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, SANKARAMANGALAM, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 26610 of 2010-A ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the builder with respect to construction of a multi storied apartment complex. The second respondent had completed assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 against the petitioner, ignoring his claim for separate assessment with respect to each units, under Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner challenged the assessment in appeal and subsequently in revision. The issue was brought up before this Court finally and taking note of the decision in M/s.Bavasons Constructions Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2007(3) KLT 101) this Court set aside the assessment. In Ext.P4 judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.26467 of 2002, the assessing authority was directed to reconsider the matter as to who is the owner of the building, on the date of completion of the construction in W.P(C) No. 26610 of 2010-A 2 terms of explanation to Section 5(6). It is further directed that such assessment shall be finalized after issuing notice to all the individual owners of different apartments. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the assessing authority has not taken any steps pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment and inspite of repeated requests made, the amount already paid by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal and revision, which is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 receipts, is not returned. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks direction for refund of the amount covered under Exts.P1 and P2 within a time limit. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents, on the basis of instructions, submitted that notice had already been issued by the second respondent to consider the matter afresh and to take a decision in compliance with the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment, and that the same will be finalized within no W.P(C) No. 26610 of 2010-A 3 time. 4. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P4 judgment was issued as early as in March 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has not initiated any action pursuant to Ext.P4 because of the fact that it is realized that individual apartments contained in the complex in question will not come within the accessible limits of plinth area. However, noticing the submission of learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the second respondent can be directed to finalise the matter and to effect refund if any due within a time frame. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to finalise the issue regarding assessment of the building in question, in view of the directions contained in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that if the petitioner is not liable for W.P(C) No. 26610 of 2010-A 4 payment of any amount, the amounts recovered under Exts.P1 and P2 shall be refunded to him without any further delay, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the finalization of the matter as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ab