IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29048 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEENA ISMAIL, D/O.ISMAIL,PALACKAL HOUSE KANJIRAPPALLY(PO)KOTTAYAM DIST.,NOW R/A.RAHATH MANZIL,THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALWAYE WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST,REP.BY P.O.A.M/S.APPE A DAY PROPERT P.P.V.T LTD,APPLE TOWER, PALARIVATTOM-EDAPPALLY BYE-PASS ROAD,EDAPPALLY(PO)KOCHI-24,EKM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR SMT.M.M.JASMIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK,ALUVA PIN 683 101 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,ALUVA WEST VILLAGE ALUVA PIN 683 101 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 29048 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Matter arises under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Ext.P10 order of assessment was finalsed against the petitioner reckoning the plinth area of the building in question as 5578.88 Square Meters and treating the building as a non residential building. Case of the petitioner is that she was the owner of 13.67 Ares of land in Aluva East village and she had entered into an agreement with a builder for construction of a multi storied residential apartment complex in the property. The builder was permitted to construct individual apartments for various prospective purchasers and Ext.P1 power of attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of the builder for facilitating transfer of undivided shares in the land in favour of such prospective purchasers. 2. After obtaining building permit in the name of 2 WP(C) No. 29048/2010 the petitioner, the builder had entered into agreements with various perspective purchasers for sale of undivided shares in the property. Ext.P4 is one of such agreements executed. Ext.P5 is the specimen of an agreement executed between one of the prospective purchaser and the builder with respect to construction of individual apartment on behalf of such purchaser. It is further stated that, after completion of the construction, undivided shares in the land was registered in favour of the individual purchasers, as evidenced from Ext.P6. It is stated that similar agreements and deeds were executed in favour of all the owners of the apartments. 3. Before finalising the assessment, the petitioner was served with Ext.P8 notice. Ext.P9 is the reply submitted by the petitioner, in which she had denied liability for payment of building tax on the ground that each apartment is owned by individual persons who had effected the construction separately. But it is alleged that, without adverting to such 3 WP(C) No. 29048/2010 objections the assessing authority had finalised Ext.P10 assessment. It is also contended that inspite of the fact that the building in question contains only residential apartments the assessment was made treating the building under non-residential category. 4. On perusal of Ext.P10, it is revealed that the order is issued in a printed form at which lacks any details. The impugned order will not reflect any consideration of the claim made by the petitioner against the proposal. Whether the petitioner was served with any notice and as to whether she had submitted any objection, is not reflected in Ext.P10 oder. This Court had depreciated the practice of issuing assessment orders in the printed form without enumerating any such details, through various judgments. The non- speaking orders issued in cryptic manner in the printed form it is unsustainable in the eye of law. The assessing authority while completing the assessment is exercising a quasi-judicial power and issue speaking orders, at least in 4 WP(C) No. 29048/2010 matters were the assessee is raising objections. 5. The question raised in this case is a claim for assessment treating the building as one falling within explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The question as to whether the building is liable to be assessed as separate units, depends on various aspects such as, whether the cost of construction of individual apartments met by the distinct owners and as to whether the construction was made on behalf of such owners, etc. In this regard, this Court in the decision M/s Bava Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tahsildar [2007 (3) KLT 101] had elaborately enumerated the parameters to be looked into and also the procedure to be followed while finalizing such assessments. 6. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the matter need reconsideration at the hands of the assessing authority. Ext.P10 is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to finalise the assessment afresh 5 WP(C) No. 29048/2010 after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to all the individual owners of different apartments. The assessment shall be finalised afresh taking note of the claim for separate assessment under explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, bearing in mind the procedure to be followed as held in the decision cited above. 7. Fresh orders of assessment in this regard shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc