IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19420 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ C.K.PREMARAJAN, S/O.C.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'PRIYA', CHENOLI ROAD, TALAP, KANNUR - 670 002. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SMT.LAKSHMI RAJAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANNUR. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19420 of 2009(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER UNDER FORM II P2 : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.3.2009 P3 : COPY OF THE LIST OF APARTMENT OWNERS FURNISHED BY PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.19420 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P4 assessment of Building Tax issued under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. According to the petitioner he is only builder of the apartment complex, which contains 12 independent residential flats (apartments) owned by 12 difference persons. The cost of the construction of each such flat was met by the individual allottees who had executed agreements with the petitioner for construction. It is the case of the petitioner that before finalising the assessment the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 statement before the first respondent requesting to make assessment of the individual flats separately against the respective owners. A detailed list containing the name and address of all the owners along with the plinth area with respect to each flats was furnished along with Ext.P2 W.P(C) No.19420 of 2009 2 statement. In Ext.P2 it was contended that the building in question will fall within the definition of Explanation -II, to Section 2(e) of the Act and individual assessment with respect to each flat has to be made separately. Complaint of the petitioner is that without considering any of the contentions raised in Ext.P2 and without adverting to any materials produced before the first respondent, the order as per Ext.P4 was issued in a mechanical way, treating plinth area of the entire apartment complex as a single unit. The assessment is made against the petitioner and 9 other persons. Therefore petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P4 order of assessment. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P4 order of assessment, it is noticed that the same is issued in a printed form. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2 has been adverted to. Ext.P4 does not reflect any application of mind nor reflect any advertance to the contentions of the petitioner. Eventhough Ext.P2 is issued in the name of 9 W.P(C) No.19420 of 2009 3 persons, it is noticed that the entire plinth area is taken into consideration and assessed as a single unit. 3. It is settled through various legal precedents that the authority making an assessment under a physical statute shall issue speaking orders which will reflect advertance to the contentions of the assessee and stating reasonings for arriving at the conclusions. The assessment orders should reflect application of mind and advertance made to the contention based on materials if any produced by the assessee. Going by Ext.P4 order, it cannot be held that the same is an order satisfying the above said legal requirements. Hence Ext.P4 is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. Under the above circumstances Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to finalise the assessment afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the owners of individual apartments, and also opportunity to produce documents in W.P(C) No.19420 of 2009 4 support of their contentions. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued as early as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE app/-