IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29155 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. V.C.ASHRAF, S/O.LATE A.M.KHADER, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT V.C.HOUSE, KOTTAM,POST MUNDALLUR ,KANNUR REP.BY HIS P.A.H ,V.MOIDU 2. SALIM JOUHAR, S/O.LATE ALI MUHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AR,SALIM ABAD ERIPURAM, CHENGAL P.O., PAYYANGADI, KANNUR REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.MOIDU. BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.29155/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.232/2007-08 DTD 4/1/2008 ISSUED BY PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN THE NAME OF IST RESPONDENTS. EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.228/2007-08 DTD.29/12/08 ISSUED BY PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN THE NAME OF 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3:-TRIE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR BUILD ENTERED IN TO WITH COTTICOLLON ABDULLA, WHO BEING THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER, FOR CONSTRUCTING APARTMENT NO .11 ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF 'THE ROSES' EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DTD 4/8/2010 ISSUED BY SECRETARY(SPECIAL GRADE),PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DTD 26/8/2010 ISSUED BY SECREARY (SPECIAL GRADE),PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN THE NAME OF 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1239/2010 DTD 25/3/2010 OF KANNUR SUB REGISTRY EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS IN FAVOUR OF COTTICOLLON ABDULLA ASSIGNING 3.49% UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE TOTAL EXTENT OF 83.20 CENTS OF LAND TOGETHER WITH RIGHT OVER APARTMENT NO.11 ADMEEASRUING 1731 SQ.FT ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF 'THE ROSES'WITH COVERD CAR PARK THEREON. P7:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. NIL SEEMS TO HAVE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 02/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29155 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging Ext.P7 order of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice insofar as Ext.P7 is in a printed form containing no reasons for the assessment in spite of the specific contention raised by the petitioners that the entire apartment complex cannot be assessed as one unit since individual apartments are owned by separate persons and therefore individual apartments have to be assessed separately. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. This Court has repeatedly cautioned the assessing authority under the Kerala Building tax Act against passing mechanical orders in printed forms without considering the contentions of the assessee or giving reasons for such assessment, especially when the assessee raises specific contentions. In this case, the petitioners have raised a specific contention that individual apartments have to be assessed separately in the name of individual owners and the entire apartment complex cannot be assessed as one unit in the name of the petitioners. In Ext.P7 there is absolutely no consideration of that specific contention. Without knowing reasons, the assessee cannot be w.p.c.29155/11 - : 2 :- expected to file any meaningful appeals also. Ext.P8 is the order imposing luxury tax based on Ext.P7 assessment for building tax, which is also devoid of any reasoning or consideration of the contentions. In the above circumstances, both the orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Exts.P7 and P8 orders are quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to redo the assessment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. I caution the 2nd respondent against again passing mechanical orders in printed forms as done by Exts.P7 and P8. Orders to be passed shall on the face of it disclose the reasons as to why the petitioners' contention that individual apartments are to be assessed separately instead of assessing the entire apartment complex as a single unit cannot be accepted under law. Orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge