IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 20695 of 2004(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- A.P.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, S/O. ANNACHAMBILLY MAMMIKUTTY HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS, ANNACHAMBILLY HOUSE, KOTTOOR, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.P.M.JAWAHARLAL SMT.SHAIMA .U. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 20695/2004 l APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE PROPERTY TAX ISSUED FROM THE R1'S OFFICE DT. 10/12/99. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE REF. NO. A.P. R3-1/W/25/5076 DT. 12/1/2001. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1 DT. 15/3/01. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REMINDER DT. 30/3/3001 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R2 DT. 24/06/2004 VIDE REFERENCE NO. R3.7126/03. EXT.P5A.. COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R2 DT. 24/6/2004 VIDE REFERENCE NO. 22540/2002. EXT.P5B. COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R2 DT. 24/6/2004 VIDE REFERENCE NUMBER 22540/2002. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE REF. NO. R3. 5803 DT. 18/6/2004. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE NEWS COVERAGE OF THE INCIDENT OF FIRE AT PETITIONER'S COMPLEX REPORTED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT. 29/6/2003. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RECEIPT DT. 12/08/2004 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R1 VIDE REFERENCE NU. 4713. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT. 17/08/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 20695 OF 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is owner of a commercial complex by name 'City Center” on the Swaraj Road, Thrissur, consisting of 89 rooms. Ext.P1 is the property tax assessment issued earlier by the respondents. Ext.P1 was challenged in appeal and by Ext.P2 order, tax was revised and was reduced by 40%. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had paid full amount demanded vide Ext.P1. On the basis of Ext.P2, the petitioner made a request for refund of a sum of Rs.2,36,413/-. Exts.P3 and P4 requests were made claiming refund. Refund was not made. Later, certain demand notices were issued on the petitioner for property tax due for the subsequent period. The petitioner had, in the meanwhile, preferred an application for vacancy remission with respect to a number of shop rooms which were lying vacant in the complex. The respondent Corporation evaded from responding to the petitioner's request for vacancy remission. The WPC No. 20695/2004 2 petitioner kept on knocking at the doors of the respondents requesting for adjustment of the amounts demanded towards future period against the amounts covered by the refund request. The petitioner made a part payment of the demand also. At that stage, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P6 demand notice under Rule 31 claiming what he described as exorbitant amount as property tax. Revenue recovery proceedings were also threatened by sale of the petitioner's property in case of default. It was followed by Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) intimations declining the petitioner's request for vacancy remission. 2. The petitioner submits that if the Corporation had actually settled the accounts with the petitioner earlier and had made a detailed evaluation of of the tax including consideration of the request of the petitioner for vacancy remission regarding a number of unoccupied shop rooms, the petitioner could have easily paid off the tax without any wishper. Adjusting the amounts, which the first respondent owes to the petitioner together with lawful interest for arbitrarily withholding the same in addition to positive consideration of the petitioner's request WPC No. 20695/2004 3 for vacancy remission and deducting the amount paid later by the petitioner towards the property tax, the difference will be at least four Lakhs from the amounts now demanded under Ext.P6 . It is also pointed out that the petitioner is presently facing severe financial problems since the major fire which occurred in the petitioner's complex. Ext.P7 Mathrubhumi Report is relied on in this context. 3. Raising various grounds, the petitioner prays for the following relief in this Writ Petition. i). Call for the entire records pertaining to the issuance of Exhibits P5, P5(a), P5(b) and P6 and issue a writ of certiorari, any other Order, writ or direction and quash the same. ii). Issue a writ of mandamus, any other Order, writ or direction, directing the respondents to furnish accurate accounts including adjustment of a remitted 40% of previous tax and its legitimate interest due from the petitioner. Iii). Issue a writ of mandamus, any other order, writ or direction, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner WPC No. 20695/2004 4 vacancy remission of unoccupied shop rooms after conducting proper enquiry. iv). Issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner's concern base don Ext.P6 pending disputed over the claimed property tax. 3. The Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying its order and denying the claim and contention of the petitioner. 4. On considering th writ petition for admission, this court granted stay against the initiation of coercive steps against the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P6 on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs within a period of one month. The above condition was complied with by the petitioner and the interim order was extended by this court on a further condition that the petitioner remits a further amount of Rs.75,000/-. That amount also has been paid. Along with separate applications, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 demand for Rs.2,44,278/-, which was received in the meanwhile. In fact WPC No. 20695/2004 5 under the interim order dated 14.9.2004, directing deposit of Rs.75,000/-, this court stayed Ext.P9. 5. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Denizen Komath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.B.Mohandas, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Submissions of the learned counsel were on the basis of the pleadings of their respective parties. 6. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I am of the view that the Finance Standing Committee of the Corporation should take an early decision on the petitioner's claim for refund. Accordingly, I dispose of this Writ Petition quashing Exts.P6 and P9 and directing the Finance Standing Committee to take an early decision on the petitioner's claim for refund after hearing the petitioner. Quashment of Exts.P6 and P9 will be conditional on the petitioner remitting a further amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) towards the subsisting demands of the Corporation within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. If that payment is made, the orders of stay issued by this court will continue till such time as the Finance Standing Committee passes orders on WPC No. 20695/2004 6 the petitioner's claim for refund. Orders, as directed above, should be passed by the Finance Standing Committee of the Corporation at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if further payments of Rs.25,000/- is not made by the petitioner within the time stipulated above, the petitioner will not be entitled for the 0relief given under this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk