IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23249 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.M.R.STEEL INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER MANOJ PRABHU, VI/525A, TRIKKAKARA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE, VAZHAKALA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANAYANNUR TALUK, FORT KOCHI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23249 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order of assessment and Ext.P6 demand notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The petitioner claims that the building in question is a factory which is liable for total exemption from payment of building tax. It is evident from Exts.P3, P4 and P5 that, a notice was issued to the petitioner prior to finalisation of assessment, the petitioner had submitted reply denying liability for payment of building tax, and the assessing authority had conducted a site inspection. But it is noticed that the order of assessment is issued in a printed form as a totally non-speaking order. It is not discernible as to whether any of the contentions raised by the assessee had been adverted to or not. So also it is not clear as to whether any documents or materials produced had been looked into or considered or not. The impugned order does not reveal application of the mind by the assessing authority. It is totally in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled legal position through various precedents of this Court and the W.P.(C).23249/09 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court that while making assessment imposing a tax liability the authority concerned shall apply its mind and advert to the contentions and shall pass speaking orders narrating its observations and findings on the basis of such contentions. Ext.P7 cannot be termed as an order satisfying those requisites. 2. Under the above circumstances, Exts.P6 and P7 are liable to be quashed and I do so. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh speaking order of assessment and demand notice, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and adverting to documents if any produced by him, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb