LALITHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIMILAR questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions arising out of assessments made under the Kerala Building Tax act, 1975 (the Act in brief ), I shall therefore deal with them together. I shall first state the facts in O. P. No. 7512 of 1992.

(2.) PETITIONER is the managing partner of a firm consisting of three partners. The firm put up a building consisting of sixteen shop rooms. It put up another building, separated from the first building in which a hotel is being run. The two buildings are separated from each other by what is termed by the petitioner as a road. Seventeen separate returns were filed for assessing the sixteen shop rooms in the first building, and the second building, as separate units of assessment under the Act. The second respondent assessing authority did not however accept the claim for making seventeen separate assessments. On the other hand, he clubbed together all the returns and completed a consolidated assessment of the shopping complex and the hotel building on a capital value of Rs. 6,53,400/- with a tax liability of Rs. 39,090/ -. Copies of the order of assessment and of the notice of demand are exts. P1 and P2 respectively. The assessment was challenged unsuccessfully in appeal before the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer. A copy of his order is Ext. P3. The matter was taken up in revision before the fourth respondent District Collector, but he also did not find his way to accept the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition by his order ext. P4. This writ petition is filed challenging the orders Exts. P1,p3 and P4.

(3.) EVEN at the outset, I must mention of a very refreshing feature of both these cases, which redounds to the credit of the assessing authorities, that they have passed detailed orders of assessment, unlike other cases of assessment under the Act which contain nothing but the figures, the basis of or the materials for the assessment. Both of them have considered the points raised and reached their own conclusions stating the reasons therefor. I should express my appreciation of the way in which the assessing authorities have performed the duty assigned to them of completing an assessment under the act/though I am not in agreement with them, on the point of law raised and argued before me, as mentioned earlier. But that does not detract from the pains they have taken to complete the assessments in the manner in which the law required them to do.