IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7732 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. ST.GEORGE CHURCH, N.H.BYE-PASS, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM P.O., KOCHI-32, REP. BY THE VICAR FR.PAUL KOTTAKKAL, S/O.OUSEPH K.D.,42 YEARS, ST.GEORGE CHURCH,N.H.BYE-PASS,CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM P.O.,KOCHI-32. 2. P.K.CHACKO, S/O.LATE KURIAN, AGED 66 YEARS, TRUSTEE OF THE IST PETITIONER, RESIDING AT 33/1627, VENALA P.O., KOCHI-682 028. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM. 4. APPEAL STANDING COMMITTEE(TAXES), CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. GVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7732 OF 2010 (N) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Property tax has been levied on the Parish Hall constructed by the petitioner Church. Petitioner claimed the benefit of exemption under Section 235 of the Act. However, overruling the objection, demand was confirmed. Appeal under Section 509(2) was filed to the council, that was rejected by Ext.P6. Ext.P6 was communicated by the Secretary. Thereafter demand notice was issued by Ext.P1. It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed. 2. The main complaint of the Petitioner is that at the assessment stage the petitioner did not get an opportunity to produce their documents and prove their case that they are entitled to exemption as provided under Section 235. On this basis counsel seeks a direction to the Secretary of the Corporation to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to produce evidence substantiating their claim for exemption under Section 235. Alternatively he also contends that exemption is declined, still, the tax as demanded now is WPC.No.7732/2010 :2 : exorbitant. 3. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation also. 4. Having regard to the peculiar facts a pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that it is only appropriate that liberty shall be given to the petitioners to produce evidence substantiating their claim for exemption/reduction of tax. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition, quashing Exts.P1,P2, P4 and P6 and directing that it will be open to the petitioners to file their objections and produce their documents before the Secretary. This shall be done within 3 weeks from today, in which event, the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the demand of property tax on the petitioners with notice to them and pass fresh orders in the matter. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.7732/2010 :3 :