IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25374 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MINI SAJAN VARGHESE, SAJ FLIGHT SERVICES PVT. LTD., T.C.35/803(2) VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. K.P. DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY CORPORATION, REP. BY SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STANDING COMMITTEE FOR APPEAL RELATING TO TAX, CITY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR, S.C, BY MR. N. NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 25374 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Adv. K.P.Dandapani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation. 2. The petitioner challenges the refusal of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to entertain a revision against the decision of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation's Standing Committee for Appeals relating to Tax. That appeal is regarding assessment of property tax. 3. It appears that the relevant assessment order was issued in 2004 and an earlier decision of the appellate committee was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. Thereafter, the appellate committee again decided the matter. While the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Rafeeka V. Kottayam Municipality (2008(3) KLT 118) (W.P.(C) No. 27256 of 2007) before the appellate committee, on the ground that they have not been given a copy of that judgment and are W.P.(C) No. 25374/09 2 not in a position to decide the matter, the appellate committee issued its decision contained in notice dated 20-7-2009, which in turn, was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 4. The return of the revision is on the ground that the entire tax has not been paid. But, the assessment issued in 2004 went up to the Tribunal and payments were made by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 judgment of this Court. If that be so, when the appeal is again decided by the appellate committee, following a remand of the Tribunal, the assessee cannot be forced to make further payment to sustain a revision before the Tribunal against the revised order of the appellate committee. To that extent, the petitioner’s plea appears to be correct. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is to be allowed quashing the return of the revision of the petitioner and directing the Tribunal to take up that matter and consider it on merits. 5. On a larger conspectus, what turns out is the plea of the assessee that the appeal committee has decided the matter without looking into the precedent laid down by this Court in Rafeeka’s case (supra). If that be so, it would be available for the Standing Committee for Appeals to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal. Since the matter relates to revenue, it will not be in the interest of the Local Self Government Institution to drag on a matter where revenue gets held up against the interest of the local authority. W.P.(C) No. 25374/09 3 In the result, the decision impugned in Ext.P3 is quashed leaving the Standing Committee for Appeals to hear the petitioner's appeal afresh and decide on it taking into consideration Rafeeka’s case (supra) also. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. mn.