APOLLO TYRES LTD. Vs. THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Company which owns a factory at Perambra in Thrissur District. It had put up buildings including structures that housed a factory as well as canteens, rest rooms, factory office etc. all of which were required to be maintained as part of their obligations under the Factories Act. When steps were taken by the respondents to levy building tax on the buildings put up by the petitioner for its factory at Perambra, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. 38544/2002, challenging the proposal to levy building tax on the buildings used as factory. By Ext.P1 judgment the said O.P. was disposed clarifying that the exemption under Section 3 of the Kerala Building Tax Act would apply to those buildings put up by the petitioner as were principally used as factories or workshops. In Ext.P1 judgment it was also clarified as to which of those buildings would come within the extended meaning of factories for the purposes of the exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the first respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P2 order levying tax on the buildings that were used for the Workers' Society, Factory, Administrative Building, Guest House, Security Quarters and Car shed etc. The main factory building and other buildings that were closely associated to the activities in the factory were exempted. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent who vide Ext.P4 order dated 6-8-2005 allowed the appeal by way of remand. The first respondent thereafter passed Ext.P5 order dated 18-10-2006, based on the directions of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P4 order. While the petitioner was of the bonafide belief that the assessment proceedings had culminated with the passing of Ext.P5 order by the first respondent, it was served with Ext.P6 order dated 4-9-2007 of the first respondent indicating that Ext.P4 order had been cancelled by the 2nd respondent by order dated 18-8-2007. It is apparent, however, that there was no notice issued to the petitioner before the said cancellation by the 2nd respondent and further that the said order dated 18-8-2007 was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner, subsequently, obtained a copy of the said order dated 18-8-2007 and it is produced as Ext.P7 in the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, Exts.P6 and P7 are impugned inter alia on the ground that they are vitiated by an error of jurisdiction.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein the sequence of events leading to the issuance of Ext.P7 order and Ext.P6 consequent order is narrated. It is pointed out that Ext.P7 order was based on the directions given in the audit report received from the Principal Accountant General (Audit) and the 2nd respondent was constrained to cancel Ext.P4 order and pass Ext.P7 order taking note of the audit objection. In the counter affidavit it is also the stand of the respondents that by issuing Ext.P7 order the 2nd respondent was only rectifying a mistake that had occurred while passing Ext.P4 order.

(3.) I heard Sri.Saji Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Smt. Lilly, the learned Government Pleader.