IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32124 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOMASEKHARA PILLAI, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, KURUSUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOWDIAR.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32124 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Challenge is against assessment made under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. According to the petitioner he is not the owner of the building which is assessed and the building in question contained different residential apartments owned by different persons. The property in which the building situates belonged to the petitioner and he had entered into an agreement with a promoter to develop the land and to construct the building in question therein. The promoter in turn entered into another contract with a builder, M/s. Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd. The said builder had developed the property by putting up a multi storied apartment complex consisting of Ground + 2 floors, with two individual apartments in each of the floors. Contention of the petitioner is that during the time of construction the apartments were assigned to prospectives W.P.(C)No. 32124 of 2009 -2- purchasers by the builder and the construction was completed by utilizing the amounts advanced by such prospective purchasers, in terms of agreements executed as that of Ext.P2. After completion of the construction, sale deeds with respect to transfer of undivided share in the property was executed into the name of each such allottees. Therefore, the contention is that the building in question will categorically come under explanation (2) to Section 2 (e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act and each residential apartment is liable to be assessed separately against the respective owners. It is contended that the assessment order and demand notice as evidenced from Exts.P5 & P4 are issued behind back of the petitioner, without notice to him. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P5 it is not discernible as to whether any notice was issued prior to finalisation of the assessment, which is mandatory under Section 9 of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act. It is also not discernible as to whether the petitioner raised any objection or filed any W.P.(C)No. 32124 of 2009 -3- return before finalising Ext.P5 assessment. The order is issued in a printed form, even without scoring off the irrelevant portions. It is a settled legal position that the authority under a physical statute making an assessment is bound to issue speaking orders, after proper application of mind, which should reflect contentions if any raised by the assessee. 3. This court through the decision in Bavasons Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 101) and Lissy Vs. Tahsildar (2000 (3) KLT 497), had issued specific directions prescribing parameters which are to be taken note of while finalising the assessment with respect of buildings which contains different residential apartments. The assessment in the name of the petitioner is made, presumably without taking note of any such procedure contemplated or without taking into consideration of the fact that the building in question contains different apartments. Therefore I am of the opinion that the matter needs reconsideration by the assessing authority. W.P.(C)No. 32124 of 2009 -4- 4. In the result the writ petition is allowed quashing Exts.P5 & P4. The 2nd respondent is directed to finalise the assessment afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner and also to the individual owners of different apartments. The assessment shall be finalised after affording reasonable opportunity to all parties concerned, as early as possible, at any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/