IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9388 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.BASHEER, PROPRIETOR, LIBERTY GROUP, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THALASSERY. 2. STANDING COMMITTEE, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. TRIB;UNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19 /3 /2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO.9386/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)Nos.9386 & 9388 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Against the levy of tax under the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act, the petitioners filed appeals before the Council of the first respondent. Against the order rejecting the appeals, the petitioners filed revisions before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. These revisions were rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 12/3/2010 for the reason that the petitioners have not complied with the requirement of Section 509 (II) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. This section provides that no appeal or revision shall be filed against the levy of tax if the tax shown in the demand notice has not been paid. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the tax found mention under Section 509(II) of the Act are the tax enumerated under Section 230 of the Municipalities Act and not tax levied under other enactments. It is stated that since the impugned levy is under the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act, the requirement of Section 509(II) is not applicable. WPC Nos. 9386 & 9388/2010 -2- 2. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. The section provides a complete embargo on the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority entertaining an appeal or revision without remittance of the tax demanded. In this case, tax has been demanded by the Secretary and if that be so, there is no reason to confine the operation of Section 509 (II) only to tax enumerated under Section 230 of the Act. Hence, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Be that as it may, I order that if the petitioners remit the tax demanded within two weeks from today and re-present their revisions with proof of payment within the said time limit, the Tribunal shall accept the revisions and entertain the same on merits. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dpk