IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22643 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.T.ROY, AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.THEYOCHAN, R/A.PALACKAL HOUSE,SEE VIEW WARD,ALAPPUZHA, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.T.SEBASTIAN, S/O.THEYOCHAN, PALACKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, AMABALPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA.PIN-688 567 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, ARYAD SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA.PIN-688 001 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.22643/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8/1/2010. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/1/2010. P3 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19/1/2010. P4 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR RS.5400/- DATED 22/1/2010. P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7/1/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR WITH THE RECORDS OF CONSTRUCTION. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 14/1/2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14/1/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P6 ORDER. P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.3416 OF 2011 DATED 17/3/2011. P9 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/6/2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P10 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT NO.BT/25522/10/J1 FOR RS.23,400/- P12 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 22643 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner constructed a building in his property. The said building was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act as per Ext.P2. The petitioner remitted the amounts. Thereafter, by Ext.P6, the respondents sought to revise the assessment. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 3416/2011, in which this Court passed Ext.P8 judgment, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Exts. P6 and P7 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for finalizing fresh assessment, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and also an opportunity of personal hearing. Fresh orders of assessment in this regard shall be issued as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. “ Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 objections to the revision of assessment taking specific contentions inter alia as to why the building cannot be assessed as a non-residential category. But without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner in Ext.P10, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P11 order in a printed form directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 23,400/- as additional building tax. The petitioner is challenging the same on the ground of non-application of mind to the specific contentions raised by the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. W.P(C) No. 22643 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. I find that the assessing authorities under the Kerala Building-tax Act pass orders mechanically in printed forms even where the assessees raise specific contentions, which have to be considered on merits. The printed orders do not usually contain any consideration of any of the contentions raised by the assessees. In fact, certain portions in the printed form which are to be scored off for making the order suitable for a particular assessee are not even scored off. Further hearing of the assessee is not a mere formality. The assessing authority is bound to consider the arguments raised by the assessee and enter a finding as to why the same cannot be accepted, which consideration has to be evident from the face of the assessment order. Without knowing the reasons as to why the assessing authority has rejected the contentions of the assessee the assessee cannot file any meaningful appeal against the assessment order. This practice should stop. The assessing authority should consider and pass orders on the specific contentions at least as an addendum in the form prescribed, which should contain his reasons for not accepting the contentions against the assessment by the assessee, failing which the assessment orders are liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. 4. In this case, it is particularly so, since in Ext.P8 judgment, this Court has elaborately considered the rival contentions and directed the assessing authority to re- W.P(C) No. 22643 of 2011 -: 3 :- consider the matter after hearing the petitioner. Ext.P11 contains no reasoning whatsoever except a finding that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 23,400/- as building tax. Ext.P11 order on the face of it discloses complete non- application of mind, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P11 assessment order and Ext.P12 demand notice are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter, considering each and every contention of the petitioner in Ext.P10 and entering specific findings in respect thereof in accordance with law. The reasoning of the 1st respondent shall be evident from the face of the order so passed. If there is no space for the same in the printed form of the order, an additional sheet shall be used for recording the reasons and findings of the assessing authority. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/