IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 8377 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KUNJABDULLA HAJI,NUCHYAN HOUSE,KELLOOR, PORUNNANNOOR VILLAGE,MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,WAYANAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,MANANTHAVADY,(BUILDING TAX ASSESSING AUTHORITY). SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8377 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to assessment completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner had constructed a residential building in the year 2005. According to the petitioner the building constructed is having a plinth area of 270.55 Sq.M. But originally the third respondent had assessed the building calculating the plinth area as 322.97 Sq.M, which according to the petitioner, is through adding the area of the car porch and open space left near the stair case. The petitioner had challenged the assessment by filing appeal before the second respondent and the matter was remanded by the appellate authority for re-measurement and for issuing fresh orders of assessment. After remand, the third respondent again finalized the matter reckoning the plinth area at 270.59 Sq.M and also exempting the petitioner from liability for payment of W.P(C) No.8377 of 2010-V 2 Luxury Tax under Section 5A. But thereafter the assessment was re-opened stating that there was an error in calculation of plinth area and the actual plinth area is 285.23 Sq.M. Ext.P5 is the order issued in this regard. 2. Challenging Ext.P5 the petitioner had filed further appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P6 is the order issued by the appellate authority. The matter was again remanded to the assessing authority with specific direction to re-assess the building considering the plinth area as 331.67 Sq.M. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the first respondent as provided under Section 13 of the Act. The revision petition was rejected through Ext.P7 order for the reason that the petitioner had not affixed the required Court fee stamp and has not produced receipt evidencing payment of 50% of the tax amount. It is also stated that the revision in question was filed after 30 days of receipt of the order of the appellate authority and thereafter it is barred by limitation. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by Ext.P7 order W.P(C) No.8377 of 2010-V 3 rejecting the revision petition. 3. On consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the revisional authority has not considered merits of the case. But the revision petition was rejected on assigning certain defects. If the first respondent is having an opinion that there exist any defects in the filing of the revision petition, the proper course ought to have been adopted is to issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him to cure such defects. It is evident that the first respondent had also assigned a reason based on the question of limitation. Eventhough Section 13(3) prescribed a limitation period of 30 days for filing the revision petition, the authority is having inherent power to condone the delay since there is no provision contained in Section 13 prohibiting such condonation. That being the position, the revisional authority ought to have intimated the proposal to the petitioner about rejection of the revision petition on the ground of delay. In such case the petitioner has to file proper application seeking condonation of delay in filing W.P(C) No.8377 of 2010-V 4 revision. Since no opportunity was given to the petitioner with respect to the above aspects, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the first respondent. 4. Under such circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to rectify the defects pointed out in Ext.P7, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the defects in payment of Court fee as well as 50% of the tax amount is rectified and if the petitioner is filing any application for condonation of delay, the first respondent shall consider the matter afresh, after taking back the revision petition on file. If the delay is condoned the revision petition shall be disposed of by the first respondent, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Needless to say that recovery of the balance W.P(C) No.8377 of 2010-V 5 amount of tax shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the first respondent as directed above, provided the petitioner makes payment of 50% of the total amount assessed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab