EAPEN CHACKO Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit P14 assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, levying building tax on the building constructed by the petitioners, is impugned in the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the building in question was originally assessed for building tax in the year 2005. While completing the assessment in 2005, the assessing authority had taken into consideration the building as it then stood which, according to the petitioners, also contained the modifications that had been effected to the building by the petitioners, in the form of a tin roofing, on top of the building, so as to prevent water seepage during monsoon through cracks that had developed in the ceiling of the building.

(2.) Exhibits P9 and P9(a) are the assessment order and demand notice that were issued to the petitioners in connection with the assessment that was conducted in 2005. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter, by Exhibit P10, notice dated 20.05.2008, issued under Section 7(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, they were asked to submit fresh returns in respect of an alleged additional construction that was effected by them. It is pointed out that there were no details furnished in the said notice issued to them, with regard to the additional construction which, according to the respondents, had been effected by the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the petitioners were not able to furnish any revised return to the 1st respondent Tahsildar. The 1st respondent Tahsildar, therefore, proceeded to pass Exhibit P11 order dated 03.06.2008, fixing the building tax on the building belonging to the petitioners at an amount of Rs. 2,21,400/-. As Exhibit P11 order had been passed without hearing the petitioners, and without considering any of the objections that they proposed to file, the petitioners approached this Court through W.P. (C) No. 20743 of 2008 impugning the said order. By Exhibit P12 judgment, Exhibit P11 order of the 1st respondent Tahsildar was quashed and the Tahsildar was directed to reconsider the matter after considering Exhibit P13 objection preferred by the petitioners against the assessment that was proposed. It is thereafter, that Exhibit P14 order dated 02.03.2009 was passed by the 1st respondent Tahsildar. In Exhibit P14 order, the Tahsildar takes a stand that the building in question being one that was residential cum commercial, and the decision relied on by the petitioners namely Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala, 2009 1 KerLT 295, having been rendered in a case that involved a residential building, could not be applied to the case of the petitioners and hence confirmed the proposal to levy the building tax at the amount of Rs. 2,59,200/-. Exhibit P14 order is impugned in the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the distinction sought to be made by the 1st respondent Tahsildar, in connection with the applicability of the decision of this Court in Padmanabhan's case is one that does not survive in view of the later pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala & amp; Ors. v. Southern Fisheries Corporation, 2011 1 KerLJ 719.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Reji George, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.