IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15518 of 2009(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOSE ILLICKAL, S/O.LATE JOHN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, ULICKAL P.O., VAYATHOOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SIJI ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER BUILDING TAX ACT), OFFICE OF THE RDO, THALASSERY. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER BUILDING TAX ACT), TALUK OFFICE, TALIPPARAMBA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAYATHOOR VILLAGE, ULICKAL P.O., KANNUR (DT.). R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 15518 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The third respondent assessed the building tax in respect of the building bearing No.VII/358 situated in the concerned panchayat, fixing the tax liability on the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order dated 20.09.2003. The case of the petitioner is that even though the entire tax liability, fixed as aforesaid, was remitted by the petitioner, another officer who assumed the office of the third respondent issued 'second assessment order' in respect of the very same building after five years of the original proceedings. Because of the coercive proceedings stated as taken against the petitioner, the petitioner was forced to remit the said amount, (covered by Ext.P3 &P4 ), though under protest, as evident from Ext.P5 & P7. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has already approached the appellate authority by filing Ext P8 appeal, along with a statement/explanatory note W.P.(C) No. 15518 OF 2009 2 attached therewith, pointing out that the second assessment effected by the concerned authority is totally alien to the 'Scheme of the Statute' and not legally sustainable. 2. Heard both the sides including the learned Government Pleader. 3. After considering the facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext P8 appeal, in accordance with law, particularly as to the sustainability of the 'second assessment' brought in by the 3rd respondent as per Exts. P3 & P4, as expeditiously as possible. Final orders in this regard shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. It is also made clear that the amount already paid by the petitioner shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent. If the petitioner is found eligible for refund of the amount, if any, necessary orders shall also be passed and the amount shall be released to him within one month from the date of passing the final order. Till finalization of the proceedings, as W.P.(C) No. 15518 OF 2009 3 above, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk