IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4657 of 2011(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD., MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MR.SHABU MON, AREA RELATIONSHIP OFFICER, MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD., VALAPAD.P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K, SRI.P.NAIJAL KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 4657 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that it is a Non-Banking Financial Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P1 notice issued by the first respondent demanding payment of advertisement tax within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice for having put its name board in the place of business of its branch at Thattamala. It also carries a warning that the board would be removed in case of non payment under section 275 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The contention of the petitioner is that they are entitled to tax exemption in view of section 271 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Evidently, the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner in terms of the said provision was not considered by the respondents prior to the passing of Ext.P1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and if the petitioners were afforded with an opportunity, they could have brought their entitlement for exemption under section 271 of the Act to WPC.No.4657/2011 : 2 : the notice of the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would admit that Ext.P1 order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In fact, it was even without issuing a notice that such a decision was taken in the matter. Ext.P1 order is dated 31.10.2010. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner had not remitted the amount in terms of Ext.P1 notice and also did not prefer any appeal against Ext.P1. However, it is submitted that no action as contemplated in Ext.P1 has so far been effected by the respondents. In view of the said circumstances and considering the fact that the aforesaid decision in Ext.P1 was taken without hearing the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder. The respondents shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to raise all its claims and contentions against the proposal made as per Ext.P1 and for that purpose Ext.P1 shall be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner shall submit his explanation on Ext.P1 expeditiously, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that in case the petitioner submits his explanation within the said stipulated time the respondent shall consider the WPC.No.4657/2011 : 3 : question relating to the entitlement of the petitioner for exemption under section 271 of the Municipality Act. Till such time the coercive steps contemplated under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge