K THYAGARAJAN Vs. PARUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE late father of the petitioner was the owner of building No. 196 in Ward VI, Kannankulangara Ward of Parur Municipality. The father of the petitioner, Shri Krishna Iyer, died on 14th Sept., 1979. Petitioner is the only son of his father. His mother is living with him at Alwaye. Petitioner submits that the building, which was occupied by the petitioner's parents in Parur had become vacant since his father's death. That building was assessed to property tax at the rate of Rs. 94.19 for every half year till the year 1980 81.

(2.) IN the quinquennial revision for the period of 1981 85, the Municipal Commissioner proposed revision of the property tax at Rs. 579.60 per year, indicating the owner of the building to be the deceased, Shri Krishna Iyer. Petitioner filed exhibit P 1 objection dt. 9th Oct., 1980, informing the CIT about the death of his father. The petitioner had stated therein that the building was locked and unoccupied, that no further improvement justifying enhancement in the property tax had been made after the last assessment and that the annual value of the property might be fixed allowing 10per cent of depreciation per year. Exhibit P 2 dt. March 6, 1981, was passed with reference to exhibit P 1 objections reducing the annual tax to Rs. 470.92. Curiously, the intimation was sent to Shri Krishna Iyer, who was no more even prior to the proposed quinquennial revision and in relation to whose death intimation was given in Exhibit P 1. Exhibit P 3 demand was sent, again addressed to Shri Krishna Iyer. Petitioner thereupon filed exhibit P 4 appeal, dt. 23rd March,1981, after remitting the enhanced tax for one and a half year. Petitioner and his mother, on whose behalf also exhibit P 4 appeal was filed, complained against the enhanced assessment of tax on the appurtenant land and the arbitrary fixation of the annual value of the property for the purpose of assessing building tax. Petitioner specifically requested in exhibit P 4 that be may be heard before the Council finally decides the matter. Objection was submitted by the petitioner on receipt of notices demanding building tax in respect of Door Nos. 210 and 211 belonging to the late father of the petitioner, Shri Krishna Iyer. Petitioner objected to the assignment of two numbers to the same building and reminded the CIT of the appeal and also requested him that the assessment of tax was contrary to S. 100(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Still later, he received exhibit P 6 order again in the name of his father intimating him that his appeal was rejected and, therefore, he should pay building tax and land tax for four half years amounting to Rs. 950.24.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had suppressed material facts relating to the letting of the building to two persons from whom about Rs. 325 per month was received as rent by the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be given any relief by this Court. The assertion that the building is unoccupied and, therefore, the standard rent should be ascertained for fixation of building tax under S. 100 of the Municipalities Act is totally refuted. Reliance was placed on exhibit R 1 letter obtained from one of the tenants alleged to have been occupying the building during 1980 81 to make out the allegation that the petitioner had suppressed material facts. It is the respondent's case that assessment of property tax and building tax were fully justified on the materials available to the CIT and the Appellate Authority ; and that there is no justification for interference with the same.5. Under S. 100 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, the method of assessment of property tax prescribed by law is that