IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25765 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.V.S.SIVAPRASAD, VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SWAPNA SIVAPRASAD, W/O.DR.V.S.SIVAPRASAD, VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.25765 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P9 order of assessment issued under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. On an earlier occasion the assessing authority issued Ext.P4 order of assessment and Ext.P5 demand notice, against which statutory appeal was filed. In Ext.P6 appellate order, the assessment was set aside and matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the assessing authority, with specific direction to advert to the contention of the petitioners, and the evidence and materials produced by them, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. After remand of the matter the assessing authority had considered various aspects of the issue and passed Ext.P9 order. The contention of the petitioners for having separate assessment with respect to the building situated separately, has been repelled finding that it is not possible to assess the building treating it as separate two buildings. However, the assessing authority had exempted plinth area of the car porch from the assessment. Contention of the petitioners is that the assessing authority, even after the remand, has not properly adverted to the objections raised by the petitioners with W.P.(C).25765/09 2 respect to assessment of the building as a single unit. It is further contended that no opportunity for personal hearing was also afforded, after remand of the matter by the appellate authority. Yet another contention is that the assessing authority had conducted inspection without notice to the petitioners. 2. Having considered the various contentions, it is noticed that against Ext.P9 assessment the petitioners have got statutory remedy by way of appeal, as provided under Section 11 of the Building Tax Act. Since there is an effective alternate remedy available it is not proper for this Court to adjudicate upon the matter. Therefore it is necessary to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of appeal. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file appeal against Ext.P9 order of assessment before the appropriate appellate authority, within a period of two weeks from today. If such appeal is filed within the said period, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal, as if it is filed within the time limit stipulated. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb