IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20002 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.KALPAKA BUILDERS PVT.LTD,A COMPANY REG;UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,IST FLOOR,CASSAGRANTE BLDGS,DESABHIMANI JUNCTION,OPP;T.V.S.SHOW ROOM, KALOOR,KOCHI,REP;BY ITS M.D.M.V.SUNIT,39 YRS, S/O.M.G.VASUDEVAN,RESIDING AT 105,SUNNY PALACE, GANAPATHIM TEMPLE ROAD,EDAPALLY,COCHIN-682024. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.GOVT. PLEADER MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 20002 of 2010-A ---------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this Writ Petition with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the assessment proceedings finalized by the third respondent under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax, assessing the building constructed by the petitioner as a 'single unit', instead of treating it as separate buildings at the hands of the different owners, who are enjoying the same with undivided interest in the land. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner was a contractor and the construction of the building was completed on the basis of the requirement of the different parties concerned, utilizing the funds provided by them, separately, as evident from the documents including the different agreements and such other materials on record. 3. While so, steps were taken by the third respondent to have the building assessed as a 'single unit'. In spite of explaining the facts and figures before the third respondent, producing the relevant materials, the assessment was completed, treating the W.P(C) No. 20002 of 2010-A : 2 : building as a 'single unit', which is stated as contrary to the decision of this Court in Bavasons Construction (P) Ltd. V. State of Kerala (2007(3) KLT 101. Met with the situation, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the second respondent, which did not turn to be fruitful, as borne by Ext.P14. In the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the first respondent, which also was in vain, as borne by Ext.P15. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders in this Writ Petition; seeking for the benefit of Explanation II to Sec.2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already satisfied 50% of the impugned liability; the first 25% having remitted at the time of filing the statutory appeal and the next 25% at the time of filing the revision petition. By virtue of the different documents produced before this Court and also relying on the binding judicial precedents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the matter is liable to be reconsidered by the third respondent. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Assessing authority W.P(C) No. 20002 of 2010-A : 3 : confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority does not reveal the actual facts and circumstances and the evidence on record. In spite of furnishing the particulars of the owners of the different apartments and the relevant documents, no notice has been issued to such persons. So also, the appellate and revisional orders have not been passed with proper application of mind, in this regard. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders/proceedings Exts.P10, P12, P12(a), P14 and P16 are set aside and the third respondent is directed to re-consider the matter after giving an effective opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as all others concerned. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a list of persons with their address, who are the owners of the different premises and all other relevant documents/records before the third respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the proceedings shall be considered and finalised by the third respondent after hearing all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ab