IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1140 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.38108/2001 DATED 08/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN O.P: ------------------------------------------------ M.C.JAMES, MANNAKALAM, PANDANKARY, EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, SRI.JOY C. PAUL, SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN O.P: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.1140 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 4th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy,J . Petitioner is having a residential building. According to the petitioner, while calculating plinth area for assessing building tax, the plinth area of two sheds, used for storing agricultural implements and not used for residential purpose, should not be included as they are entitled to the benefit of exemption as provided in the proviso to Section 5 of the Building Tax Act. The returns were rejected and revenue recovery proceedings were ordered. The assessment is in printed form and it is not a speaking order. Since it is not a speaking order, no proper appeal also cannot be filed. Even though, appellate authority considered the matter, a reading of the above appellate order shows that mainly appellate authority went into the consideration that the apportioned rooms are not numbered. The numbering of the rooms is not a condition for getting WA.1140/08 2 exemption under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act. With regard to the evidence, it is also stated that no evidence was adduced. But no speaking order was passed by the assessing authority. The revisional authority just rejected the application without any application of mind and without a speaking order. In these circumstances, we are of the view that assessing authority itself should pass a speaking order after considering the contentions of the parties, calling for the reports, personal hearing etc. as required under the Act and Rules. Petitioner also should give necessary evidence to prove his contentions. Impugned assessments, order and judgment of the learned Single Judge are set aside and matter is allowed by way of remand. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case and it is for the statutory authorities to decide the matter according to law. With the above observations, this appeal is allowed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp