IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29103 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.ABDUL RAHIMAN MUSALIYAR, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA MUSALIYAR, RESIDING AT ERAMOM AMSOM, MATHAMANGALAM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAMAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29103 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of assessment and Ext. P6 demand notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. According to the petitioner while making assessment, the 2nd respondent had erroneously clubbed together the existing building which is already assessed and for which tax has already been remitted. It is submitted that the building presently constructed is a separate building and there is no justification in clubbing both the buildings for the purpose of determining the plinth area. It is contented that Section 5 (4) has no application in the facts of the case. 2. The petitioner has got an effective remedy by way of appeal against Ext.P5 assessment since the question whether the assessment under Section 5 (4) is sustainable is the question of fact. It is not at all desirable for this court to W.P.(C)No. 29103 of 2009 2 entertain the matter without the petitioner exhausting the statutory remedy available. 3. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file appeal against Exts.P5 & P6. If the petitioner files any appeal against Exts.P5 & P6 within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the competent appellate authority as an appeal filed within the time limit prescribed. The petitioner can seek appropriate relief regarding interim stay before the appellate authority. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/