IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28449 of 2009(A) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------- P.M.GEORGE, S/O.P.C.MANUEL, RESIDING AT 27/3235, CHAKKALAKKAL ROAD, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-682 015. (DIRECTOR, JACOBS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGD OFFICE: 38/2201, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (BUILDING TAX), TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNOOR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 28449 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act was finalized against the petitioner as per Ext.P5 in his address as P.M. George, Jacob's (Pvt.) Limited, 38/2201, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam. Ext.P6 is the demand notice issued against the petitioner in the above said address. Challenging the assessment and demand, the petitioner had preferred appeal as provided under Section 11 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed as evidenced from Ext.P7, as early as on 8.3.2001. It is evident that the petitioner had suffered the order and no further challenge was initiated before any forum. The grievance violated by the petitioner in this writ petition is against Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated for realization of tax amount due under the assessment. Ext.P8 is the notice issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is noticed that the recovery steps are initiated against the petitioner W.P.(c). No. 28449/2009 2 under the very same address, which is shown in the order of assessment and notice of demand. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that he is only a Director of M/s. Jacob's (Pvt.) Limited, a company incorporated. It is further contended that the property in question wherein the building is situated was acquired only by the company. The building was constructed therein after transferring undivided shares over the property to more than 60 persons, who had purchased distinct and specific portions of residential apartments and commercial areas in the building, which was intended for construction, at that time. It is further stated that the above said company had entrusted the development and construction works with another company, M/s. Manual Sons Housing Company (Pvt.) Limited and the said builder had executed separate agreements with each of the proposed purchasers for constructing distinct apartments and commercial areas in W.P.(c). No. 28449/2009 3 the building. Under the above circumstances, contention of the petition is that the building in question is not liable to be assessed neither against the company to which the petitioner is a Director, nor against the petitioner personally. In other words, contention of the petitioner is that the building in question is liable to be assessed as separate units, one coming within the purview of explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had suffered Ext.P7 appellate order which attained finality as early as on 8th March 2001. More than 8 and half years had lapsed, since the date of the appellate order. The petitioner has not resorted to any statutory remedy or has not raised any challenge against Ext.P7 before any other forum. No statutory revision was filed from that order, during the last 8 and half years. The correctness of Ext.P7 cannot be looked into by this Court in a proceeding under Article 226, after W.P.(c). No. 28449/2009 4 lapse of more than 8 and half years. There is no explanation forthcoming with respect to the inordinate delay caused in challenging Ext.P7. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain the challenge and to adjudicate upon correctness of Ext.P7, in this writ petition. 4. This is yet another challenge against the Revenue Recovery steps on the premise that defaulter is the company and personal properties of the petitioner are not liable to be proceeded against under the Revenue Recovery steps. But it is noticed that the assessment was completed in the name of the petitioner in the address of the company. According to the petitioner he was only representing the company in the proceedings. It is evident that the assessment is completed under the premise that the property belongs to the company. The petitioner had produced Ext.P1 and P2 sale deeds relating to the properties in question, which will revel that the company had purchase W.P.(c). No. 28449/2009 5 the property. 5. I am of the opinion that the above dispute is a matter which need be adjudicated by the competent authority under the provision of the Revenue Recovery Act, at the first instance. Therefore the petitioner is given liberty to raise objections before the first respondent, against proceedings if any initiated to realize the amount from his personal properties. If any such objection is filed, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and to issue appropriate proceedings thereon. It is made clear that any proceedings against personal properties of the petitioner shall be resorted to only after such objection is considered and disposed of by the first respondent, if such objection is filed before proceeding with sale of such properties. 6. It is made clear that the directions contained above is not a bar to the authorities for initiating proceedings W.P.(c). No. 28449/2009 6 against assets of the company, M/s. Jacob's (Pvt.) Limited, if any available. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SS/