IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 5809 of 2001(N) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.M.PAULOSE, KUDIYIRICKAL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU, ADIMALI. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DEVIKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.9609/2001 IN OP.NO.5809 OF 2001 DISMISSED. 22.2.2008. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF TAHE PROCEEDINGS DTD.24.8.94 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.21.10.94 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.1.2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.1.2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.5809 of 2001-N. ========================= Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge is against the revised orders of assessment which are confirmed in appeal and revision. The petitioner is one of the owners of a building in Survey No.1373 in Mannamkandam Village. The construction of the building was completed in the year 1990 and by order dated 14.11.1991 of the 3rd respondent the building tax payable was assessed at Rs.88,800/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said assessment order and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. After remand, the tax payable was reduced to Rs.48,000/- and the petitioner remitted the entire tax thus demanded. 2. By Ext.P1 notice the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that the Accountant General pointed out that there is a short levy of Rs.38,403/- due to incorrect assessment. It was OP.No.5809 of 2001-N. -: 2 :- pointed out that the tax was assessed based on carpet area in the place of the plinth area. The petitioner filed an objection. By Ext.P2 order the authority imposed further liability of Rs.38,403/-. This was confirmed in Ext.P3 by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said order was confirmed in Ext.P4 also. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rectification attempted is unauthorised and illegal especially in the light of the decision reported in George v. Tahsildar (2000(3) KLT 620). The construction of the building in question was completed in the year 1990. This Court in Sherly v. State of Kerala (2006(2) KLT 306) has held that sub-sec.(2) of Sec.5 as amended is unconstitutional. Therefore as far as the assessment of the building is concerned it should be based on the law as existing as on the date of completion of the construction of building. In that view of the matter the stand taken in Ext.P1 does not appear to be correct. The basis of the original assessment stands and the revised assessment proposed based on the plinth area is illegal especially in the light of the decision reported in Sherly v. State of OP.No.5809 of 2001-N. -: 3 :- Kerala (2006(2) KLT 306). Therefore, Exts.P1, P2, P3 & P4 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to take steps to refund the amounts collected pursuant to the above orders and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-