IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 6602 of 2000(H) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.M.GEORGE, DIRECTOR, JACOBS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHITTUR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KOCHI. 3. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. G.P. SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R1 SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN,SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R2 & R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NOS.11102 & 15020/2000 & 14604/2001 IN OP 6602/2000 DISMISSED: 6.6.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.19.11.1998. P1(a) SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER DT.28.10.98. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.3.1.2000. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE TAXES(APPEAL) COMMITTEE, CORPORATION OF COCHIN DT.17.1.2000. P4: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.9.2.2000. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION. P6: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.18.9.2000. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.24.2.2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(a): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.24.2.01 PASSED AS PER THE DECISION OF THE TAX APPEAL COMMITTEE. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.6602 of 2000 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging demand notice issued by the Cochin Corporation demanding building tax in respect of constructed portion of a commercial cum residential building constructed by the petitioner in the town. The appeal filed against the assessments are dismissed by the Standing Committee of the Corporation. The assessment was from 1997-98 onwards. By now there would have been already atleast two quinquennial revisions revising the tax. In the circumstances, challenge against original assessment is not maintainable at this distance of time. Moreover, I find from the notice that the annual value and the tax demand are very reasonable having regard to the location and size of the building. In the circumstances, O.P. is closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to raise objection against future revision of tax. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms