SAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of the building "Hotel Original", Beach Road, Quilon. That building was constructed in the year 1981. He was served with notice under S.7(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", calling upon him to file the returns. He did not comply with that notice. Thereupon assessing authority, namely the second respondent, passed Exhibit P1 order of assessment fixing the value of the building at Rs.8,10,000/-. Petitioner was then called upon to pay a sum of Rs.54,750/- as tax. That order was challenged in appeal as provided by S.11 of the Act. Third respondent, the appellate authority, dismissed that appeal by Exhibit P3 order. Petitioner took up the matter in revision before the third respondent, the District Collector, without success. Against the order of the District Collector, Exhibit P5, petitioner preferred an application before Government. Government, by Exhibit P6 order, informed the petitioner that it has no power to entertain his application under the Act against the order passed by the third respondent. Hence this Original Petition.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The contentions taken therein are to the following effect:-The building in question is a multi-storeyed building, having five storeys. The contention of the petitioner that second respondent passed the best judgment assessment under R.9(1) of the Building Tax Act without observing any statutory duty is denied. Notice under S.7(3) was served on the petitioner on 23-6-1983. He failed to submit a return in Form II. The assessing authority, therefore, resorted to the best judgment provision under S.9(5) of the Building Tax Act The assessment was done by the Assistant Collector, who was also in charge of the post of Tahsildar. He personally verified and prepared the valuation report, estimating the value and arrived at capitalised value at Rs.8,10,000/-. The details of valuation were recorded by the verification Officer. The basis adopted by him was that prescribed by the P.W.D. Petitioner did not produce any document or record to prove his contention. The capital value of the building was arrived at by the assessing authority as per S.6(4)(a) and (h) of the Act. The assessing authority under the Act is not bound to accept the cost of construction adopted by the authority for assessing the income tax and wealth tax. In Para.9 of the counter affidavit, it is averred:-

(3.) The building in question put up by the petitioner has been assessed by the Kollam Municipality. The annual value fixed by Municipality is Rs.24,000/-. This fact is admitted by the respondents in Para.13 of the counter affidavit. On the basis of the annual value fixed by the local authority, the capital value of the building comes to Rs.2,40,000/-.