IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25827 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- E.J.JOSE,MANAGING PARTNER,HOTEL PRINCE, M.C.ROAD,KALADY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 101. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KALADY VILLAGE, KALADY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 683 574. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR,FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-1. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.25827 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P9 order passed by the 3rd respondent/appellate authority with regard to fixation of liability under the Kerala Building Tax Act. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition stating that the construction of the building was effected by the petitioner much prior to the commencement of the Act and hence that the petitioner is not liable to satisfy the tax under any circumstance. It is contended that, without any regard to the specific case projected by the petitioner before the first respondent/assessing authority, the assessment was finalised under Section 5 of the Act and it was in the said circumstance that the matter was subjected to challenge by filing appeal before the third respondent. However, the third respondent, without appreciating the actual W.P.(C) No.25827 OF 2010 2 facts and circumstance , simply passed a cursory order as borne by Ext.P9 on 09.04.2010 and the same was served to the petitioner only on 04.08.2010, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner is still left with the statutory remedy by way of Revision, if aggrieved of Ext.P9, by approaching the District Collector/Revisional authority, as provided under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 4. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 13 of the Act . So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner as per Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. It is also made clear that the petitioner will be bound to satisfy a total of 50% W.P.(C) No.25827 OF 2010 3 of the building tax assessed, as prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act, so as to have the Revision petition entertained, in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has already effected some payment, the petitioner needs to satisfy only the balance amount to top up the figure to 50%. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk