IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5979 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MANAGING PARTNER, SKYLINE BUILDERS, SKYLINE HOUSE, RAJAJI ROAD, COCHIN-30. BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR AND ASSESSING AUTHORITY (UNDER THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT), KOTTAYAM – PIN- 686 001. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM -II, VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -PIN- 686 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.5979/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.PW7-BA-409/01-02 DATED 23/3/2002 ISSUED BY THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY TO SRI.MANI MATHEW. P2 COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 15/7/2003 IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX. P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.1059/11 FOR THE PERIOD 1/1/2002 TO 31/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KOTTAYAM A. P4 COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT/RECEIPT BY THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY IN RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL APARTMENT(12 NOS). P5 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 16/7/2009 ALONG WITH 12 NOS OF RETURNS IN FORM II OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT. P6 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 15/7/2009 WITH LIST OF APARTMENT OWNERS. P7 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 29/9/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.D1/738/2004 DATED NIL UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT. P9 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.D1/738/2004 DATED NIL UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 5979 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Issue involved in this writ petition relates to assessment of Building Tax completed under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The petitioner firm, who is a builder had constructed a multi-storied apartment complex containing 12 independent apartments. It is the case of the petitioner that, the construction of apartments were undertaken on the basis of request of the intending purchasers of distinct apartments, by meeting the cost of construction by each of them jointly. The undivided share in the land was also transferred into the name of the 12 purchasers by virtue of sale deeds executed by the land owner himself. On completion of the construction, occupancy certificate was obtained in the name of the permit holder, who is the land owner. It is further stated that the local authority, Kottayam Municipality, had assessed property tax in the name of the individual owners with 2 W.P.(C).No. 5979 of 2011 respect to different apartments. 2. It is contended that for the purpose of assessment, the returns were filed by the owners of all the apartments individually, before the 1st respondent. All the documents in support of the claim for separate assessment as contemplated under Explanation 2 to Section 2 E, was submitted before the assessing authority. It is stated that a statement of accounts showing the cash flow with respect to contributions made by each of the owners as well as all the agreements and sale deeds were produced in support of the above claim, before the 1st respondent. However, the assessment was completed as per Ext.P8 order only against the petitioner, treating the entire building as one unit and reckoning the total plinth area as 1107.55 m.sq., and also treating the category of the building as 'non residential'. 3. It is contended that the assessment is completed in a highly arbitrary and unreasonable manner without adverting to any of the claims raised by individual apartment owners and without considering any of the documents produced in 3 W.P.(C).No. 5979 of 2011 support of such claim. Hence, the petitioner is seeking to quash the order of assessment, despite availability of statutory remedy of appeal. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P8 order of assessment as well as notice of demand, it is evident that those proceedings were issued only in a printed form even without scoring the irrelevant portions contained therein. It is not discernible from the order of assessment as to whether any notice was issued before finalising the assessment and as to whether any objection was received from the petitioner. Consideration of any of the documents alleged to have been produced before the assessing authority is not discernible from the order in question. It is settled law by this time that the assessing authority is discharging a quasi-judicial function and he is expected to write an order with proper reasonings. Issuing a cryptic order of assessment without disclosing the details has been deprecated in many decisions of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, I am of the view that, Ext.P8 order is unsustainable in the eye 4 W.P.(C).No. 5979 of 2011 of law. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Ext.P8 order of assessment and the notice of demand issued therewith are hereby quashed. The 1st respondent assessing authority is directed to complete the assessment afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to file objections against the proposal. The assessing authority shall issue notice to all the owners of the individual apartments and shall consider all the records produced by the parties concerned. A considered decision with respect to the eligibility for separate assessments, as contemplated Explanation 2 to Section 2 E of the KVAT Rules, shall be taken by the 1st respondent. 6. The assessment in this regard shall be completed at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/