IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3408 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ORAYAMPURATH HOUSE, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 3408 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 6, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 is an assessment order passed under the Building Tax Act. In this writ petition essentially the petitioner disputes the plinth area that is assessed by the respondent. Yet another dispute raised by the petitioner is that proceedings are initiated against him while the building and the property belongs to his wife. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that on two occasions the plinth area was measured with notice to the petitioner. It is also stated that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner had co-operated fully with the respondent and he never raised a dispute that the property belongs to his wife. 3. Since the liability of tax is a charge on the property and as the petitioner-husband at no point of time raised a dispute on the ownership of the building in question, the respondent cannot be faulted for the steps they have taken. In view of the fact that WP(C)3408/08 Page numbers essentially what the petitioner now disputes is the correctness of the plinth area that is assessed by the respondent, I feel that the petitioner should be relegated to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal that is available. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the petitioner will be free to pursue the appellate remedy that is available under the Kerala Building Tax Act. However, petitioner points out that revenue recovery proceedings have already been initiated by Ext.P3 demand notice. Having regard to the fact that I have relegated the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy that is available, I direct that if the petitioner remits 50% of the amount due on Ext.P3 within two weeks from today, further coercive action against the petitioner for realising the amount mentioned therein shall be deferred for a period of three months. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-