MATHEW Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has constructed a building in the Vadakkancherry Panchayat in Palakkad District. It is a substantial one with a plinth area of 2022 sq.ft. There is controversy as to when it was completed, whether it was in 1977 or in 1981. I do not propose to go into that question as it is unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of this writ petition. The petitioner was assessed to tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the Act) in respect of this building. His case was that the capital value of the building was only Rs. 35,000/- and thus, below the assessable limit. But the assessment, Ext. P2, was completed on 23-7-1988 on a capital value fixed at Rs. 1,06,801/- with a tax liability of Rs. 386/-. Having regard to the very small amount involved, and the substantial value of the building one would have expected the petitioner not to expend his time, energy or money in fighting the matter further, but that is what precisely he did and with disastrous results, which, in my opinion, were fully deserved, on the facts of this case. His appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer was rejected as time barred. But he moved the District Collector in revision under S.13, which was disposed of by the order (Ext. P4) dated 27-2-1990. It is a detailed well considered order well ratiocinated and well supported by facts and figures. I would, in fact, have upheld it as not meriting any interference in writ jurisdiction, but for the jurisdictional flaw vitiating it, to which I shall presently advert.

(2.) The District Collector held that the building with a plinth area of 2022 sq.ft. would easily have fetched, at the time of construction, a rent which could be anything from Rs. 2,022/- to Rs. 4,044/- per month having regard to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality, about which he gave facts and figures. He, therefore, held that the capital value should range between Rs. 2,42,640/- and Rs. 4,85,280/-. Accordingly, he set aside the order of assessment and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for making a fresh assessment, fixing the capital value after taking into account the rent which would be received for such buildings, if let out, in the locality, considering all the factors mentioned in S.6(4) of the Act. Petitioner filed this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging Ext. P4. Soon thereafter, the order Ext. P4 was implemented, and a revised order of assessment Ext. P7 was issued fixing the capital value at Rs. 3,96,252/- with a liability for tax of Rs. 14,238/-. Petitioner then amended the original petition challenging the proceedings Ext. P7 as well and the consequential demand Ext. P8.

(3.) The order Ext. P4 was passed on a revision petition which the petitioner had filed before the District Collector under S.13 of the Act. Thereunder, the District Collector could, either suo motu or on application by the assessee, call for and examine the record of any order passed by the appellate authority or the assessing authority, and pass such order with reference thereto as he deems fit. But an order could be taken in suo motu revision only within a period of three months from the date of that order (see sub-section (2)). To put it negative y, suo motu proceedings in revision are not permitted after the lapse of three months from the date of the order. The order of assessment Ext. P2 in this case was passed on 23-7-1988 so that a suo motu revision of that order was barred at the time the District Collector passed the revisional order Ext. P4 on 27-2-1990.