IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24922 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE PALLISSERY BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE ARATTUPUZHA, REP.BY THE PALLISSERY KSHETRA KSHEMA SAMRAKSHANA SAMATHY, ARATTUPUZHA PO, THRISSUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SUBRAMONIAN V.V. AGED 35,S/O.VYKATTIL VELAYUDHAN, OORAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, ARATTUPUZHA THRISSUR-680 562. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 24922 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent/appellate authority who dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner with regard to the fixation of liability under Section (5) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the building in question was assessed by the assessing authority fixing huge liability upon the petitioner, in spite of the fact that no tax liability is actually attracted, as the concerned 'building/auditorium' is never being leased out and no income is being generated therefrom; the same being exclusively used for 'religious/charitable' purpose. Challenging the assessment order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. Observing that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents before the appellate authority, interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P6. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. It is very much obvious that the petitioner is still having an effective alternate remedy by way of Revision, under Section 13, before the District Collector. The petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the said remedy. It is also revealed from Ext.P3 receipt that the petitioner has 2 WP(C) No. 24922/2010 already satisfied the 1st and 2nd of the total 'four' quarterly payments to be effected pursuant to Ext.P1. This being the position, no further deposit needs to be effected by the petitioner so as to avail the revisional remedy as above. Taking note of the fact that Ext.P6 was passed on 15.06.2010 and further since the petitioner has satisfied 50% of the disputed liability, way back in the year 2006 as borne by Ext.P2, this Court finds that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to avail the revisional remedy as above. 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to avail the remedy by way of revision. If any revision petition is filed before the concerned revisional authority within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits, after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'two months' thereafter. It is also made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to produce all the requisite documents before the revisional authority, so as to substantiate the case as now projected before this Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc