IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25867 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KISA BUILDERS, NEAR SREE NARAYANA PARK, KANNUR - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.K.P.KASIM. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR - 1. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 690001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.25867/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER AND DETAILS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. EXT.P-2:-TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE OWNERS OF THE APARTMENT. EXT.P-3:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 5.9.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 25867 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a builder. He constructed an apartment complex having 60 flats. According to the petitioner, the cost of each flat was met by the person for whom each apartment was constructed. As such, according to the petitioner, each flat should have been assessed separately for the purpose of Kerala Building Tax Act. In respect of the assessment, the petitioner has raised this specific contention. But without considering the contention of the petitioner, Ext.P3 order of assessment of building tax and Ext.P4 order of assessment of luxury tax have been issued. The petitioner is challenging the same on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, insofar as the same do not give any reasons as to why the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. This Court has time and again held that procedure of issuing assessment orders under the Kerala Building Tax Act in printed forms filling up blank spaces is not the way to pass assessment orders, especially when serious contentions are raised. It has been held by this Court that the assessing authority shall consider each and every contention of the assessees and enter specific findings in respect of w.p.c.25867/11 - : 2 :- those contentions. In this case, Exts.P3 and P4 are merely orders issued in printed forms filling up the name, area and tax. No reason whatsoever has been stated therein as to why the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. As such, I am satisfied that Exts.P3 and P4 orders are violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P4 orders are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to redo the assessment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The assessing authority shall enter specific finding in respect of each and every contention of the petitioner and the same shall be evident on the face of the orders to be passed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge