IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21532 of 2007(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. BOBEN PAUL, S/O P.POULOSE, AGED 43, PATTALATH HOUSE, THURUTHI P.O., VENGOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. REP. BY, P.A.ABDUL KABEER, S/O. P.G.ABDULLA, AGED 44, PULINTHARA PARAMBIL HOUSE, "SHABANA", AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, P.O.POOTHOLE, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. 2. P.A.ABDUL KABEER, S/O P.G.ABDULLA, AGED 44 YEARS, PULINTHARA PARAMBIL HOUSE, "SHABANA", AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, P.O.POOTHOLE-680 004. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.T.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21532/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ABDUL KABEER ON 30.11.2005 AS DOCUMENT NO.7811/2005 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRISSUR. P2:- COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O. THRISSUR DTD. 16.12.2005. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS 17035/2005/C1.DTD, 29.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE R.D.O. THRISSUR. P4:- COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 10.2.06. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AS NO.G1-8493 DTD. 22.2.2006. P6:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AS NO.G1-8483/06 DTD. 24.3.2006. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21532 of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 17th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging the fixation of liability under Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. The assessment was finalized by the assessing authority, treating the entire building, which consists of different portions owned, possessed and enjoyed by different persons, as a single unit, mulcting the liability upon the shoulders of the petitioners in respect of two rooms, which were constructed by the first petitioner as the 'builder' and subsequently came to the hands of the second petitioner as the 'purchaser'. 3. Being aggrieved of the assessment, statutory appeal was preferred by the petitioners, wherein interference was declined, as per Ext.P3 order passed by the concerned authority holding that assessment order was passed as early as on 26.07.99, whereas the appeal preferred only on 16.12.05 was much belated. The petitioners preferred Ext. P4 revision petition before the second respondent, wherein Ext.P5 memo of intimation was given on 22.02.2006, pointing W.P. (C) No. 21532 of 2007 : 2 : out certain defects including the non satisfaction of the disputed liability to an extent of 50%, which is pre-requisite to entertain the revision petition under Section 13. Admittedly, the petitioners did not satisfy the requirements, as stipulated in Ext. P5 and in the said circumstances, the revision petition was dismissed as per Ext. P6, which made the petitioners to approach this Court. 3. Taking note of the specific contentions raised by the petitioners, that the entire liability in respect of the whole building complex has now been converged on the two rooms, now owned by the second petitioner, who has paid full sale consideration in respect of the said rooms when they were purchased. It is contended that the liability, if at all any, has to be shared by the other persons concerned, who are the owners of the other portions of the building, this Court, as per interim order dated 14.09.07, permitted the petitioners to implead the others persons concerned, if so advised. The coercive proceedings were intercepted for a period of two months, on condition that, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh within one month. Admittedly, the petitioners have not satisfied the said condition, nor have they impleaded the other persons concerned and as such, no relief can be extended to the petitioner with regard to the apportionment of the liability. More so, in view of the mandate under Section 19 (2) of W.P. (C) No. 21532 of 2007 : 3 : the Kerala Building Tax Act, which stipulates that the building constructed will be subject to building tax assessed and the arrears if any thereon shall be a first charge on the building. 4. With regard to the correctness and sustainability of Exts. P3 and P6, there is no case for the petitioners that the appeal was preferred within the statutory period of six months. Ext. P3 assessment order was passed as early as on 26..07.99, whereas the appeal was preferred only in the year 2005 . By virtue of the law declared by this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Poduval (2005 (4) KLT 947), once the statutory remedy is barred by limitation, remedies come to an end and the party cannot invoke writ jurisdiction. Since Ext. P4 appeal was preferred only after 5 - 6 years after passing the assessment order, the appellate authority rightly rejected the same vide Ext. P3, which does not call for any interference. 5. Further, though the petitioner had preferred a revision under Section 13, some defects including the non satisfaction of 50 % of the disputed liability to have entertained the revision were noted and informed vide Ext.P5. Since the petitioners do not have any case that they have complied with the requirements, rejection of revision petition as per Ext. P6 also does not call for any interference. W.P. (C) No. 21532 of 2007 : 4 : 6. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits. It is dismissed accordingly. Taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the rights and liberties of the petitioners to proceed against the others concerned, if so permissible in accordance with law, is left open. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd