LAWS(KER)-2025-3-59

XAVIER J. PONNEZHATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 19, 2025
Xavier J. Ponnezhath Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners challenge an order of assessment dtd. 30/8/2022, assessing petitioners' building to tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.

(2.) Petitioners' commercial building having an extent of 1328 sq.m, was subjected to an assessment on 1/1/2016 under Sec. 5 of the Kerala Building Tax, 1975 [for short, 'the Act'] imposing an amount of Rs.6,01,200.00. The date of completion of the said building was shown as 28/10/2015. While so, on 6/5/2016, petitioners obtained permission to construct a trusswork over the roof of the building. After completion of the trusswork, Ext.P6 order of assessment was issued on 1/3/2018, imposing building tax of Rs.2,80,800.00 due to the increase in the plinth area of the building on account of the trusswork. The total area was thus calculated as 2604.08 sq.m, including an addition of 1276.08 sq.m.

(3.) Petitioners challenged the order of assessment dtd. 1/3/2018 before this Court in W.P(C) No.9660/2018, pointing out the absence of any notice given to them before issuing the said order of assessment. Petitioners had also, in the meantime, preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, against the order of assessment dtd. 1/3/2018. By judgment dtd. 7/6/2018 in W.P(C) No. 9660/2018, the assessment order was set aside and a fresh consideration was directed. In the meantime, the appeal was taken up for consideration, and despite noticing the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9660/2018, the appellate authority confirmed the order of assessment. It is curious to note that the order of assessment dtd. 1/3/2018 which had already been set aside by this Court, was confirmed by the appellate authority, even after noticing that judgment. Petitioners were thus compelled to approach this Court once again, in W.P.(C) No.25557/2020, and by judgment dtd. 20/11/2020, the order of the appellate authority was set aside and the assessing officer was directed to consider the matter as directed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9660/2018.