IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32494 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PREMARAJAN.C.K., S/O.C.K.KRISHNAN, AGEAD 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT `PRIYA', CHENOLI ROAD TALAP, KANNUR-670 002. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANNUR-670 702. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk WP(C).No. 32494 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER UNDER THE FORM II. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25/3/2009. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY FO THE LIST OF APARTMENT OWNERS. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 22/6/09. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.19420/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 23/9/09. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 32494 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner constructed a building consisting of 12 apartments. According to the petitioner, that building has been constructed with the funds provided by the purchasers of the apartments and, therefore, each apartment has to be assessed separately for the purpose of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act as held by this Court in Kurian George v. Tahsildar, 1995 (2) KLT 457. But the 1st respondent assessing authority has, on a mistaken interpretation of the documents produced by the petitioner, has assessed the entire building as one unit, which, according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P6 assessment order passed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the assessing authority is without jurisdiction. May be it is a mistake, if the contentions of the petitioner are correct. But I do not think that that is a ground for entertaining a writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order, when the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal. The appellate authority is certainly w.p.c.32494/11 - : 2 :- empowered to consider all the contentions of the petitioner. I do not find any want of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order, existence of which alone would justify my entertaining a writ petition against an assessment order by-passing the appellate remedy. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in an appeal, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge