IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15785 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.PUSHPAVALLY, D/O.KRISHNAMMAL, AGED 68 YEARS, CSM NAGAR, HOUSE NO.181, EDAPAZHANJI, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 10. 2. MEERANADHAN, D/O.LAKSHMI, NAIDHRUBHA, TC 9/2760(2), CSM NAGAR, HOUSE NO.285-2, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 10. 3. R.SATTANATHAN, S/O.S.RENGANATHAN, NAIDHRUBHA, TC 9/2760(2), CSM NAGAR, HOUSE NO.285-2, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 10. 4. MYTHILI SUNDARAM, 1101, SANGHVY MAJESTIC, MANMALA TANK ROAD, MAHIM, MUMBAI - 4000016. 5. R.SUNDARAM, 1101, SANGHVY MAJESTIC, MANMALA TANK ROAD, MAHIM, MUMBAI - 4000016. BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.K.R.SAJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ASSESSING AUTHORITY, BUILDING TAX, TRIVANDRUM - 10. R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15785 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DT. 10.08.2009 EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT. 13.02.2010 EXECUTED BY THE FOURTH PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT. 6.4.2011. EXT.P4. COPY of the DEMAND REQUIRING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY THE AMOUNTS IN FOUR EQUAL INSTALLMENTS. RESPNDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 15785 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge assessment orders and demand notices under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioners claim to be owners of 5 flats in an apartment complex. According to them, they own flats and the cost of construction was shared by them. Therefore, the flats are liable to be assessed separately as independent flats owned by the petitioners, is their contention. Instead, the apartment complex as a whole has been assessed as one unit. Consequently, luxury tax also has been directed to be paid. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have not been issued with any notice under the Kerala Building Tax Act to enable them to object to the assessment. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “A. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext. P3 and P4 and quash the same to the extent that it imposes Building Tax treating the entire building as one unit. B. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to revise Ext. P3 and to further direct the 2nd respondent to compute the building tax payable in accordance with the provisions of the Building Tax Act by treating each apartment owned and possessed by the petitioners as separate unit.” 2. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein the statement is that notice has been issued to one Sri. Renganathan, who had constructed the multi-storeyed building and he did not appear for the hearing. Therefore, assessment W.P(C) No. 15785 of 2011 -: 2 :- order has been passed, is the contention. 3. I have heard the parties. 4. From Ext. P3 and P4, I find that the same are issued to the petitioners. That being so, the petitioners should have been given a notice before the assessment. In the statement, it is admitted that notice has been issued to Sri. Renganathan. That is not sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. If building tax is to be collected from the petitioners before assessment they should have been issued with notice, which has not been done in this case. For that reason, impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, Exts. P3 and P4 are quashed. However, it would be open to the assessing authority to assess the building afresh after issuing notices fo all the 5 petitioners as also Sri. Renganathan. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/