IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25134 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.V.SAJI, S/O.VARGHESE AGED 46 YEARS, NEELANKAL HOUSE, PIRAVOM 686 664 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR AND ASSESSING AUTHORITY MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 25134 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order of assessment and P8 notice of demand issued under the provision of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). Contention of the petitioner is that the residential building in question was constructed originally before 30 years by his father and the petitioner had effected only improvement on the existing building during the year 1997. Therefore according to him, building tax is liable to be assessed only on the additional plinth area resulted from the improvements, as per provisions of 5(3) of the Act. Pursuant to the proceedings initiated for assessment, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice. The petitioner thereupon produced Ext.P3 certificate obtained from the Grama panchayat concerned, evidencing that the building was originally assessed in the name of the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was again issued with Ext.P4 notice requesting him to produce convincing evidence to the fact that the original construction was completed prior to the appointed date. The petitioner thereupon produced Ext.P5 and P6 certificates obtained from the Grama panchayat satisfying that the original construction was completed before 30 years. But after taking into consideration of the above certificates, the first respondent has not issued any speaking order on the contention raised by the petitioner. Instead Ext.P7 and P8 are issued in the printed Form without disclosing any reasoning for rejection of the contentions and without entering WPC NO.25134/2009 2 upon any finding regarding the merit of such contentions raised. 2. As per Section 9(3) of the Act, the assessment authority is bound to hear the assessee and to consider the evidence produced and also to conduct necessary enquiries and inspections, before finalizing the assessment. Going by Ext.P7 and P8, it is not discernible as to whether the assessing authority had applied his mind with respect to the contentions raised by the petitioner nor it had conducted any verification of the materials or conducted any inspection before finalizing the assessment. It is trite law that in any of the taxation statutes when an assessment is objected the authority is bound to pass speaking orders after adverting to the contentions and after considering the evidence adduced, and enumerating the findings arrived therein. Such speaking order is to be issued also for satisfying principles of natural justice. Ext.P7 and P8 cannot be termed as one satisfying such requirements. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, Ext.P7 and P8 are hereby quashed. The assessing authority is directed to pass fresh speaking order after considering all the contention and adverting to the documents produced in support of such contentions, if necessary, after giving further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Fresh proceedings in this regard shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc