IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No.32685 of 2000(N) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR. M. VENUGOPAL, MADHAVA MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.JOHN BRITTO SMT.SINDHULAKSHMI SRI.V.P.REMESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASST. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHENGANNUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (TAX) SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No.32685/2000 Order on C.M.P.No.55785/2000 in OP.No.32685/2000 Dismissed. 16.12.2008 Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT RENTAL VALUE FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 30.7.93. EXT. P2 : COPY OF the PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 11.10.93. EXT. P2(a) : COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 24.11.93. EXT. P2(b) : COPY OF the PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 28.2.1994. EXT. P2(c) : COPY OF the PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 3.6.94. EXT. P2(d) : COPY OF the PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 19.11.1994. EXT. P2(e) : COPY OF the PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 7.2.1995. EXT. P2(f) : COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 22.3.1995. EXT. P2(g) : COPY OF the PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 29.3.1995. EXT. P2(h) : COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 6.3.96 EXT. P2(i) : COPY OF the PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 26.7.1995. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE IMPOSING FINE ON DELAYED PAYMENT DT. 24.8.1995. OP.No.32685/2000 EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF CAPITAL VALUE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 17.7.96. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 25.3.1997. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 11.12.1996 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 1.7.99 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P8 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 28.2.1997 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27.1.2000 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29.8.2000 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 32685 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner constructed a building in 1988. But he filed his return under the Kerala Building Tax Act only on 4.2.1993. Based on the return, the building was assessed to building tax by Ext.P1 assessment order dated 30.7.1993 for an amount of Rs.49,850/-, based on the annual rental value of the building. Later on, Ext.P3 notice dated 24.8.2005 was issued to the petitioner for correction of certain alleged mistakes in the assessment. Still later by Ext.P4 order dated 17.7.199, the assessment was revised on the ground that in view of the subsequent amendment made, the assessment should have been made on the basis of plinth area whereas the assessment order was actually made on the basis of annual rental value. The petitioner filed Original petition challenging Ext.P4. In that original petition there was a direction to reconsider the matter. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P7 revised order was passed on 1.7.1999, but confirming the revised assessment. The petitioner's appeal O.P.No.32685/2000 2 against that order was dismissed by Ext.P9 order. Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P3, P4, P7, P9 and P10 orders in this original petition. 2. The learned Government Pleader frankly admits that Exts.P4 and P7 orders have been passed under Section 5(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, which has been declared as unconstitutional by this Court in the decision of Shirly V. State of Kerala [2006(2) KLT 306]. He further submits that, that cannot prevent the respondents from continuing proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 notice. Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioner as early as on 24.8.1995. 3. I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the learned Government Pleader in so far as 13 years have elapsed after Ext.P3. It is settled law that delay in completing proceedings would vitiate the proceedings themselves. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed. If any amount has been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of one month. The writ petition is allowed as above S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.32685/2000 3