IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).NO. 6126 OF 2006(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.D.DEVASSIA, CHOWATTUKUNNEL, EDAVARAMBA.P.O, CHERUPUZHA VIA., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.V. AMARESAN MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR), TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAYAKKARA, KANNUR. 4. TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA, ASSESSING AUTHORITY (BUILDING TAX). GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).6126/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN FORM V UNDER RULE 8(1) OF KERALA BUILDING TAX RULES DT.16.5.02 ISSUED BY R4 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF REASSESSMENT ORDER DT/9/03. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.9.03 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING REF.NO.G.7832/04 DT.30.12.05 EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER REPORTED BY THE DY.DIRECTOR NO.266/99 OF DEPT. OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DT. 29.12.99 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 6126 OF 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, a revised assessment of Building Tax, issued against him along with Ext.P3 consequential demand. The petitioner's building was assessed for levying Building Tax as per Ext.P1 order, to the tune of Rs.4,500/-. Thereafter the 4th respondent unilaterally revised the assessment through Ext.P2 order refixing the tax liability at Rs.9,000/- and demanding payment of the balance amount of Rs.4,500/-. On the top of Ext.P2 order it is written as “revised assessment order”. In Ext.P3 demand notice issued along with the order of assessment it is stated that the revision of assessment was necessitated because the building in question was earlier assessed under the rate prevalent with respect to Grama Panchayats, whereas the building in question is actually situated in a Special Grade Panchayat. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 in revision before the 1st respondent, which had resulted in Ext.P4 order. The 1st respondent held that the revision of assessment is in order because it is convinced W.P.(C).6126/06 2 through a report received from the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Kannur that 'Cherupuzha Panchayat' is a Special Grade Panchayat. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment which is confirmed in Ext.P4 order. 2. The contention of the petitioner is two folded. He is challenging the revised assessment on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. Secondly the petitioner is disputing the factual aspect that the Grama Panchayat in question is a Special Grade Panchayat. It is rightly contended by the petitioner that once the assessment of Building Tax is completed, there is no provision in the Act enabling the assessing authority to reopen the same or to revise the amount therein. Eventhough there is power for rectification of mistake provided under Section 15 of the Act, the reason stated in Ext.P2 is not an error apparent on the face of record which can be rectified, is the contention. Further, even assuming Ext.P2 as an order issued under S.15 of the Act, it is not sustainable for want of mandatory notice contemplated under the said provision. It is an undisputed fact that before issuing Ext.P2 the petitioner was not issued with any notice intimating the proposal for rectification of the assessment, nor he was given any opportunity to object such proposal. Considering the admitted position as above, I need not go into the disputed question whether the Panchayat concerned is a W.P.(C).6126/06 3 Special Grade Panchayat or not. 3. In the result Ext.P2 assessment and P3 demand which is confirmed in Ext.P4 revisional order is hereby quashed, holding them as legally unsustainable. If the 4th respondent is of the opinion that there occurred any error apparent on the face of the record with respect to Ext.P2 assessment, he will be at liberty to rectify the same by issuing notice as mandated under S.15(1) of the Act. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to object such proposal on the ground that the reason stated for rectification is not an error apparent on the face of record, and also on the factual dispute regarding rate of tax based on the status of the Panchayat. The amount if any remitted pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 1.3.2006 may be appropriated in accordance with the final outcome of the proceedings if any initiated by the 4th respondent in this regard. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb