IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29488 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LOURDE MATHA FORENE CHURCH, CHEMPERI P.O. REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR FR.MATHEW PALAMATTAM, S/O. SCARIA, AGED 54 YEARS, ERUVESSY AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI, SRI.V.A.SATHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 29489 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 29488 of 2008(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT DATED 29/10/2007 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29/10/2007 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LUXURY TAX RECEIPT DATED 01/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERUVESSY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 03/07/2008 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN REF. F 5261/08 AND F-5262/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 29488 & 29489 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in these two writ petitions is the same, which is a church. Building belonging to the church was assessed to tax. The petitioner filed appeals against the assessment. The same were rejected by the appellate authority as barred by limitation. According to the petitioner, the appeals were dismissed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed applications to condone delay in filing the appeals and therefore the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeals. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act reads as follows: “11. Appeals: xx xx xx (3) The appeal shall be presented within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or the date of service of the order, as the case may be, but the appellate authority may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period, provided however that no such appeal shall be admitted after a period of six months from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or the date of service of the order, as the case may be. (Emphasis supplied) W.P(C) Nos. 29488 & 29489 of 2008 -: 2 :- From the same, it is clear that the appellate authority does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, which is filed beyond 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. In both cases, the petitioner received the orders of the assessing authority on 15.11.2007 and the petitioner filed an appeal only on 26.5.2008, which is beyond 6 months from the date of receipt of the assessment order. That being so, the appellate authority could not have entertained the appeal at all. This Court cannot also consider a challenge against the original order or the appellate order in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval, 2005(4) KLT 947, which was rendered in similar set of facts. In view of the above findings, these writ petitions are without merit and accordingly, they are dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/