IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30994 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.P.KUNHALI HAJI, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, AREEKKAT POTTAMMAL, POTTAMMAL MADU, PERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR-676 101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI-676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), TIRURANGADI-676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.30994/2011-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.P2 7611/09 DATED 17/2/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 17/3/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S SON BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.P2 7611/08 DATED 20/9/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 21/1/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(A) TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21/1/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 19/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVALLUR. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE (FILE NO.2011/291/10/600 DATED 23/9/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.7 AND 34 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30994 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been assessed to building tax as per Ext.P3 assessment order. The petitioner paid that building tax and filed an appeal against the order. Now the petitioner has been served with Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice demanding an amount of ` 10,000/-. The petitioner is challenging the same on the ground that the petitioner has already paid the tax assessed. 2. On 22.11.2011, I passed the following interim order: “The learned Govt. Pleader seeks time to get instructions to satisfy this Court that despite payment of the building tax by the petitioner, still the respondents can initiate revenue recovery proceedings as done in Ext.P6. Post next weeks. There would be a status quo in respect of recovery pursuant to Ext.P6 in the meanwhile.” On 9.12.2011, I passed the following order, which is self-explanatory. “The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the demand now raised is for luxury tax and not for building tax. Govt. Pleader shall produce a copy of the assessment order assessing luxury tax. Post next week.” Today the learned Government Pleader produced before me a copy of the assessment order assessing luxury tax on the petitioner, assessing an amount of ` 8,000/- for four yeas at the rate of ` 2000/-. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, that is the w.p.c.30994/11 - : 2 :- amount which is now sought to be recovered through Ext.P6 and not the amount of building tax assessed by Ext.P3. In view of the same, the remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging that order appropriately. If the petitioner requests for a certified copy of the assessment order, the same shall be issued to the petitioner immediately on receipt of an application for the same. Ext.P4 appeal filed against Ext.P3 order shall be disposed of by the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge