IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29059 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.PAUL, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL DYNASTY, OPP.KSRTC, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA - 689 645. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA - 689 645. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.29059 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The matter relates to assessment completed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. There is a serious dispute with respect to calculation of plinth area of a non-residential building with respect to which the assessment was completed. 2. In Ext.P1 order of assessment, tax was imposed against the petitioner on the basis that total plinth area of the building is 4665.75 Sq.M. According to the petitioner, the calculation was made adding plinth area of the terrace portion upon which a tin sheet roofing alone is made. The petitioner claims exemption with respect to said area, which according to him could not be considered as built up area. However, the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the second respondent on remitting first instalment of the tax assessed. While disposing the appeal, the second respondent, on the basis of a report submitted by the third respondent, found that the plinth area assessed is not correct, and the actual plinth area of W.P(C) No.29059 of 2010-F 2 the building is 5283.24 Sq.M. Therefore, the third respondent was directed to issue fresh assessment accordingly. Ext.P6 is the modified order of assessment issued by the third respondent. Meanwhile, aggrieved by Ext.P4 appellate order the petitioner had preferred revision petition before the first respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P5. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the revision petition, recovery steps has been initiated for realising the balance amount, on issuing Ext.P6 notice of demand. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the basis of instructions, submitted that eventhough the petitioner had filed Ext.P5 petition before the first respondent, he has not complied with the pre-requisite of payment of second instalment of tax. Under such circumstances, the first respondent has not registered the revision petition and it was not considered, is the submission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of the second instalment due under Ext.P1 and he prays for a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of revision petition on its merits. W.P(C) No.29059 of 2010-F 3 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 revision petition and to pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, provided the petitioner remits the second instalment of tax due under Ext.P1 order within a period of one month from today. 6. The first respondent will dispose of Ext.P5 at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of remittance of amount as directed above. 7. Till such time orders are passed by the first respondent on the revision petition, recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits the 2nd instalment of tax amount as directed above. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab