T.T.JOY Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the writ petition is against Ext.P12, an order of assessment passed under Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. It is stated that in the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2, on the strength of a building permit that was obtained on 14-06-1990, a commercial building was constructed. On completion of the construction, building tax was assessed as per Ext.P3 order. That order was confirmed by Ext.P4 order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. Thereupon, O.P.No.24155/2000 was filed by the petitioners. That OP was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment rendered on

(2.) -11-2000. By this judgment, the Tahsildar was asked to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court in Lissy Vs. Tahsildar [2000 (3) KLT 497]. Petitioners say that subsequently, they were issued Ext.P6 assessment order dated 6-03-2009 to which they filed Ext.P7 objections. In the meanwhile, they obtained Ext.P10 building permit dated 18-09-2007 and completed construction of the second floor of the building. The work is stated to have been completed on 17-09-2010. It was thereafter that measurement in pursuance to the directions of this Court was completed as per Ext.P9. Still later, assessment of the building tax was completed by Ext.P12, levying tax in respect of the whole building. It is challenging the assessment order and the demand notice, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the building was constructed in two stages. The first stage was completed prior to 1992 and the second stage was completed in 2010. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, despite this, the whole area has been treated as one unit and assessment has been completed by Ext.P12. This is stated to be illegal. The question whether Section 5(3) is attracted to this case, is a matter to be proved by the petitioners and this factual contention cannot be decided in a writ petition.

(3.) THESE are factual findings and if the factual findings are correct, the respondent is justified in the conclusions. Although it is the case of the petitioners that the building consists of separate blocks with separate access and separate ownership to be separately assessed, that is a factual contention which cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this is a fit case where the petitioners should pursue their remedy by filing an appeal as provided under Section 11 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.