IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9525 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CENTURY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, POINACHI, THEKKIL P.O., (VIA) CHENGALA, KASARGOD – 671 541. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN, SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH). RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARGOD – 671 121. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9525 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge is against Ext.P1 order of assessment finalised under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, and the consequential demand made. Challenge is on the ground that the building in question is an educational institution, with respect to which the provisions of the Act will not apply. It is contended that, before finalising the assessment, the petitioner was not issued with any notice as contemplated under Section 9. On receipt of Ext.P1 the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 request before the 1st respondent to re-consider the matter. However, since no action was taken, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that, before finalising the assessment a notice as contemplated under Section 9(2) was issued to the petitioner and that he appeared and claimed exemption and sought time. It is further stated that with respect to the claim the petitioner was directed to produce the document, which he failed. Therefore assessment is valid, is the contention. 3. From Ext.P1 order of assessment as well as Ext.P3 W.P.(C).9525/11 -2- demand notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, it is evident that the assessment is made against, the Chairman of an educational institution, which is running for a Dental Science and Research Centre. Prima facie it is evident that, the assessment is against the building in which an educational institution is functioning. Going by provisions of the statute it is clear that the Act will not apply to the building used particularly for educational purposes. Therefore the contention of the petitioner is that the assessment is illegal and unsustainable. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P1 it is evident that the order of assessment is issued in a cryptic manner in a printed form. It is not discernible as to whether any notice was issued before finalising the assessment and as to whether the petitioner had claimed any exemption. It is trite law by this time that, the assessing authorities are exercising quasi judicial functions and they are expected to issue detailed orders while finalising the assessments. Normally the assessment under the Building Tax Act is completed after conducting physical verification of the building. I do not find any reason to hold that Ext.P1 as valid, if the 1st respondent had finalised the assessment after coming to know about the factual situation that the building is constructed W.P.(C).9525/11 -3- for the purpose of establishing an educational institution and if an educational institution is functioning therein. Since the non- speaking order issued in a printed form is not maintainable, I am of the view that the matter needs re-consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of assessment and Ext.P3 consequential demand are hereby quashed. 6. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter and to take a decision regarding the claim for exemption, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that if there exists any dispute regarding eligibility of the claim for exemption, the 1st respondent has to resort to provisions contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Act. 7. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb