IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 1732 of 2005(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANTONY JOSEPH, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.T.J.JOSEPH, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.5, CHOWRINGHEE MANSIONS, 30 CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 106 AND TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 32/2350 H, TEEJAY ESTATE, PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-682 025. 2. JOE JOSEPH, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.J.JOSEPH, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.5, CHOWRINGHEE MANSIONS, 30 CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 106. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. ADV. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING COMPLEX CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P1(a) PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING COMPLEX CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS SHOWING THE ANALYSIS OF TAX DEMANDED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 1993-94 TO 1997-98. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.1.1998 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF SHOP NO. 32/2350b. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.12.2000 FROM THE PETITIONERS TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2000 FROM THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.1.2001 FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 8.1.2001 ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURE FROM THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.2.2001 FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 5.3.2001 FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 30.3.2001 FROM THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 9.9.2004 FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 29.9.2004 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 29.7.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST LETTER DATED 23.8.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 24.8.2002 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF EXT.P14. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.9.2004 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES C AND D, FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 22.9.2004 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND WHICH CONTAIN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF COPY OF EXT.P16. 3 EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.9.2004 FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE REVENUE OFFICE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY. EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. E.Y.R. 4-3250/04 DATED 9.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 1732 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT W.P.C. is filed challenging the property tax assessments in respect of a building comprising of six shop rooms, first floor and second floor. The case of the petitioner is that increase in property tax varies from shop room to shop room and the present increase is several times the previous year's tax and so much so it is exhorbitant and arbitrary. The further contention of the petitioner is that tax levied for the second floor is double the tax payable for the first floor. His further case is that different rates are charged for different rooms in the ground floor. However, standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that details of rent at which building was let out was taken and based on the rent collection, tax is determined. Since tax is payable based on annual value , which again is based on annual rental value, the case of the Corporation is absolutely tenable. Petitioner has not furnished any details of rent at which the each and every portion of the building was let out. Further petitioner's case that tax is levied with retrospective 2 effect is also not tenable because tax is periodically increased in every four or five years and even if there is delay in increase of tax, it takes effect from the end of the period for which tax was earlier fixed. However, petitioner cannot be called upon to pay interest for the revised tax demanded with retrospective effect. Since Corporation has stated that assessment was modified in appeal and revision, remedy if any against those orders will be before the Tribunal. Two months' time is granted to the petitioner to file appeal before the Tribunal along with details of rent collections, if the petitioner so desires. W.P. is closed as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3