IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26870 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KOTTARAM TRADING COMPANY, KOTTARAM TOWER, PAYYAPPALLY ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ANTONY THOMAS. BY ADVS.MR.REJI GEORGE SMT.MANJU RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI-682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. MR.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26870 of 2009 - C ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2009 Judgment The petitioner firm constructed a commercial building after obtaining a building permit from the Cochin Corporation. After the building was constructed, it was given for separate door numbers namely, 5015A, 5015B, 5015C and 5015D in Division No.40 of Cochin Corporation. Thereupon, property tax was assessed and levied on the petitioner and Exts.P2 to P5 demand notices were issued demanding half yearly property tax at the rate mentioned therein. The petitioner remitted the said amount on 26.5.2008. The petitioner did not file an appeal as provided under sub-section (2) of section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act within the period of 30 days stipulated in sub- section (5) of section 509 thereof. Long thereafter, the petitioner firm filed Ext.P6 representation dated 17.3.2009 before the Secretary of Cochin Corporation requesting for reducing the property tax and to refund the excess property tax paid by the firm. In the alternative, the petitioner prayed W.P.(C) No.26870/2009 2 that the excess payment made may be adjusted towards future dues. The said representation was rejected by the Secretary of the Corporation on the ground that the application is belated. A reply in that regard was sent to the petitioner as per Ext.7. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass orders thereon. 2. On going through Ext.P6, it is evident that what the petitioner seeks is reduction in the property tax levied as per Exts.P2 to P5. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the levy of tax proposed in Exts.P2 to P5, the petitioner ought to have, in my opinion, filed an appeal before the Standing Committee for Appeals on Taxation constituted by the Cochin Corporation within the period of limitation prescribed for filing such an appeal. The petitioner did not invoke the said remedy. Instead, the petitioner remitted the tax promptly. Such being the situation, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass orders thereon. Further, the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P6 has already been rejected by the Corporation and the said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P7 letter. W.P.(C) No.26870/2009 3 3. A Division Bench of this Court has in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval (2005 (4) KLT 947) held that if the period of limitation runs out and the appellate authority is not empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the remedy comes to an end and the assessee cannot move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the original authority. Another Division Bench of this Court has in Tiyarcee Tiles v. Addl. Sales Tax Officer (20006 (3) KLT SN 87, Case No.123) held that when the statute itself provides for remedies which have to be invoked within a time frame, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked after the statutory period for invoking the remedy has expired. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa