JOSE ANTONY Vs. CORPORATION OF COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original petitioner, having died during the pendency of the proceeding, his son has been impleaded as additional petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the orders exts. P2, P4 and P6 passed by the respondent Corporation. THE petitioner's case is as follows: THE building in question was in occupation of Brunton & Company. THE Door Nos. 1/261 to 1/270 were subsequently re-numbered as 1/292 to 1/297. Buildings Nos. 1/262 to 1/270 were demolished and due intimation was given to the respondent. But, the respondent demanded the tax in respect of Building Nos. 1/264,1/265 and 1/266 for the periods 1982-83 and 1983-84. Building Nos. 1/261 and 1/263 are assessed together with effect from 1-4-1984 and are given Door No. 1/292.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount less the amount barred by limitation till the date of demolition and no notice having been served on the petitioner before revision of the assessment, the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice and is therefore not entitled to recover tax at the enhanced rate. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies on S. 417 of the Act as it stood then, and submits that the claim of tax prior to the period of three years pending the notice being barred by limitation under S. 417 of the Act, the demand made for the periods 1982-83 to 1985-86 is illegal. S. 417 of the Act lays down as follows: - "limitation for recovery of dues.- No distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any sum due to the corporation under this Act after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which distraint might first have, been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might first have been commenced, as the case may be, in respect of such sum".