IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1535 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANUEL HATCHERY AND BREEDING FARM, KANAKKANKALAM, KOZHIPARA P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS SMT.GIJI MANUEL. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKARAPATHI VILLAGE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 1535 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the claim put forth by the petitioner seeking for exemption from payment of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, by virtue of exemption stated as available to him as provided under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act ought to have been referred to the Government for consideration and clarification by the Government in tune with the stipulation under Section 3(2) of the Act or not. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite raising a specific objection as above, the second respondent, who is the assessing authority simply chose to proceed with further steps, passing Ext.P6 assessment order fixing huge liability upon the petitioner, followed by Ext.P7 demand notice, which are not correct or sustainable . W.P.(C) No. 1535 OF 2010 2 3. Heard th learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the law declared by this Court, the only course open to the second respondent in view of the claim for exemption was to have the matter referred to the Government for passing appropriate orders under Section 3 (2) of the Act. Since such a course has not been admittedly pursued by the Second respondent, Ext. P6 order cannot have any valid existence. So also is the position with regard to the consequential notice demanding payment, as borne by Ext.P7. 5. In the above circumstances, Exts.P6 and P7 are set aside and the second respondent is directed to refer the matter to the Government under Section 3(2) within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of such reference, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of such reference. It is also made clear that till such final orders W.P.(C) No. 1535 OF 2010 3 are passed by the Government, all further steps for recovery of the amount allegedly due shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk