IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 19363 of 2002(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A.V.GEORGE AND COMPANY LTD., P.B.NO.1,ANCHERIL BUILDINGS, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, G.J.ANCHERIL BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY KOTTAYAM 686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM 686001. BY ADV. S.C.,KOTTAYAM MUNCIPALITY NO MEMO SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.33063/2002 IN OP.NO.19363/2002-E. DISMISSED. 15.2.2008. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF NOTICE NO.18287 DTD.25.3.1999 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF LETTER DTD.3.10.2000 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF NOTICE DTD.8.12.2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF APPEAL DTD.9.1.2001 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF NOTICE DTD.19.2.2001 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF LETTER DTD.21.2.2001 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF NOTICE DTD.2.3.2001 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF NOTICE DTD.27.4.2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF LETTER DTD.8.6.2002 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF ORDER DTD.19.6.2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.No.19363 of 2002-E. ========================= Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P8 & P10 whereby the Secretary of the Municipality made a re-assessment of the property tax in respect of Building No.IX/227A owned by the petitioner. Initially Ext.P1 notice was given proposing a fresh assessment. That resulted in Ext.P3 whereby the annual value assessed is at Rs.1,50,000/- and the half-yearly tax fixed at Rs.8,453/- with effect from 1998-1999. Thereafter Ext.P4 appeal has been filed by them before the Finance Standing Committee of the Municipality and as per Ext.P5 the appeal was rejected. By Ext.P6 again the petitioner filed representation and by Ext.P7 a rehearing was conducted on 8.3.2001. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter no orders were communicated to them as regards the disposal of the appeal. By Ext.P8 the Municipality proposed to re-assess the tax relying O.P.No.19363 of 2002-E. -: 2 :- upon the resolution dated 8.3.2001 of the Finance Standing Committee. Objection was also filed by the petitioner by Ext.P9 and that was rejected by Ext.P10 by the Secretary. 2. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit explaining the above action taken. It is further contended that Ext.P10 is appealable under Sec.509. Hence the question has to be examined further. 3. The facts reveal that the direction by the Finance Standing Committee to reassess the building was issued while disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner. That is mentioned as resolution No.22 dated 8.3.2001 in Exts.P8 and P10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said resolution was never communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that since it is a reassessment based on the direction by the Finance Standing Committee, an appeal against Exts.P8 & P10 under Sec.509 will not be effective before the very same forum. 4. The remedy of the petitioner is under sub-Section 8 of Section 509 to file a revision petition before the Tribunal O.P.No.19363 of 2002-E. -: 3 :- constituted in the matter. But the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that so far they have not been communicated with any copy of the resolution dated 8.3.2001 which is passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be communicated with the true copy of the resolution dated 8.3.2001. 5. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Exts.P8 and P10 in appeal before the Finance Standing Committee under Sec.509. On a reading of Ext.P10 it is seen that the same has been passed based on the resolution dated 8.3.2001 of the Finance Standing Committee. Hence an appeal against it in the same forum will be an empty formality as the said forum is bound by their earlier resolution. It is upto the petitioner to challenge the same along with the challenge against the resolution dated 8.3.2001 on communication of the said proceedings by the Municipality. 6. The petitioner is directed to file the revision petition before the Tribunal within three weeks from the date of receipt of O.P.No.19363 of 2002-E. -: 4 :- the proceedings of the Finance Standing Committee dated 8.3.2001. The Tribunal is directed to take up the matter on file and consider the same on merits and dispose of the matter after hearing both the parties. 7. As per the interim order in CMP.No.33063/2002 this Court had stayed the recovery of the enhanced tax. The said interim order has been continuing through out and the petitioner was directed to pay the pre-enhanced tax until further orders. The said direction will continue till the revision petition is disposed of by the Tribunal as directed above. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-