IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1440 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, "KANNARKAT CONDOMINIUMS", REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOSEPH GEORGE, NO.18A, "KANNARKAT CONDOMINIUMS", TOC-H ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES), TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1440 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The apartment owners' association of an apartment complex has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b). Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b) are orders of assessment and notice of demand that have been issued by the 2nd respondent, assessing the building tax on the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the building consists of individual units which has been constructed by individual owners utilising their individual contribution. On this basis, petitioner submits that assessing the whole building as one unit, and that too against the petitioner, is totally illegal. Petitioner also relies on the judgment of this court in Bavasons Constructions (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala - 2007(3) KLT 101. 3. A reading of Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b) shows that the whole building is assessed as one unit. It has been explained by this WP(C) 1440/2008 Page numbers court in the judgment referred to above and in several other judgments, that the respective owners of the apartments are liable to satisfy the assessing officer that the individual units are liable to be assessed separately. Petitioner submits that all particulars making it obligatory for the 2nd respondent to assess the individual apartments separately were made available by the respective owners of the flats during November 2006 itself. It is also stated that in March 2007 and July 2007, again further particulars were also made available. Ext.P6 is an affidavit that has been filed in this writ petition in support of this contention. Along with Ext.P6, petitioner has also annexed a list of the owners of the apartments, payments that they have made, document numbers, date of completion of the building, corporation building numbers and other particulars as well. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that none of these things have been considered by the 2nd respondent. All that the 2nd respondent seems to have done is to put the blame on the petitioner for having not produced the documents. 4. Be that as it may, in view of the law that has been declared by this court in the judgment referred to above, I feel that the WP(C) 1440/2008 Page numbers matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly I dispose of the writ petition quashing Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b) and directing that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter with notice to the individual owners of the apartments in question, the details of which are given in the writ petition itself and also in the annexure to Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner or the individual owners of the apartments to produce such materials as they decide to satisfy the 2nd respondent that the flats in question are liable to be assessed separately for the purpose of building tax. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-