IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10956 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.VISWANATHAN, PROPRIETOR, VIDYA PICTURE PALACE, THATHAMPALLY P.O., AVALUKUNNU WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 613. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV.SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 10956 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 order of assessment and Ext.P6 demand notice issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The assessment is made with respect to a building owned by the petitioner, in which a cinema theatre is functioning. According to the petitioner, the building in question was constructed during the year 1980. Exts.P1 to P3 documents were produced in support of the above claim. It is further contended that, on completion of the building the petitioner had filed return as required under the relevant provisions, during that time itself. But the petitioner is not in a position to locate a copy of the return filed or to locate the receipt obtained evidencing remittance of building tax during that time. However, when the petitioner received notice proposing the assessment, he had raised objections contending the above aspects, through Ext.P4. But without considering any of the contentions 2 W.P.(C).No. 10956 of 2011 raised, the assessment was completed through a cryptic order issued in a cyclostyled form, without mentioning any details. Hence, the petitioner is challenging the order of assessment, as one issued in a totally illegal manner without compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed. 2. Heard ; learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. According to the Government Pleader, the building in question was not assessed on any earlier point of time and the assessment is completed on the basis of returns filed by the petitioner. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P5, it is not discernible as to whether any notice was issued prior to finalisation of the assessment and as to whether the petitioner had filed any objections against such proposal. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner was seen adverted to or disclosed in the impugned order of assessment. It is trite law by this time that, finalisation of assessment under a taxation statute is a quasi judicial function and the authority 3 W.P.(C).No. 10956 of 2011 concerned is expected to give reasoned orders. The order of assessment, now issued in the cyclostyle form, without mentioning any details, is totally unsustainable. 4. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the petitioner had raised contention that, even assuming, without admitting, that the building was not assessed on any earlier point of time, the assessment is completed by adopting the Plinth Area Rules, is not sustainable, since the construction was completed as early as in the year 1980. However, in view of the observations made as above, I am of the view that, the impugned order of assessment is unsustainable and the matter requires fresh decision at the hands of the assessing authority. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P5 and P6 are hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to finalise the assessment afresh, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to object such assessment and to produce supporting documents to substantiate his contentions. The assessment need be finalised after 4 W.P.(C).No. 10956 of 2011 affording an opportunity of personal hearing and the assessing authority should pass a detailed order narrating specific reasons. 6. The needful in this regard shall be done 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 ami/