IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6814 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.C.SREEKUMAR, SREENILAYAM, FLAT OWNERS OF CHANDRA TOWERS, VYTTILA, PUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM. 4. ANIL VARGHESE, PRESIDENT CHANDRA TOWER APARTMENT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, CHANDRA TOWER, VYTTILA, PUNITHURA. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 6814 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 27, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is a notice of demand issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act. Petitioner claims that he is a builder who has entered into agreements with various persons, on the strength of which, utilising their contribution flats were constructed. It is also his contention that all these flats have been sold, but proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for assessment of tax under the Building Tax Act and that resulted in Ext.P1. It is also stated that on the failure of payment as per Ext.P1, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated by Ext.P3. 2. Petitioner relies on the judgment of this court in Bavasons Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala - 2007 (3) KLT 101 and would contend that the assessment of building tax should be separately made for flats and that too in the name of the owners of the individual flats. WP(C) 6814/08 Page numbers 3. As already noticed, by Ext.P1 assessment has been concluded against the petitioner. If, as stated by the petitioner, he was only a builder having constructed flats utilising the contribution made by the individual flat owners and if the petitioner is able to sustain this contention raised in the writ petition before the assessing authority, this case will be squarely covered by the judgment referred to above. However, it does not appear that the opportunity afforded to the petitioner has been utilised by him by making available the documents that are now available. In view of this, since the law in this behalf is settled by the judgment of this court referred above, I feel that ends of justice require that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to contest the matter before the 3rd respondent. 4. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P1 and P3 and direct that the 3rd respondent shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner and on receipt thereof, it will be open to the petitioner to produce documents to bring his case within the scope of the law laid down by this court in Bavasons' case (supra). The enquiry as above shall be concluded by the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within WP(C) 6814/08 Page numbers three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-