GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of a lodging house called 'Sastha Tourist Home' at Mannarghat. It is a two storied building and was constructed stage by stage. The construction started in 1983. After completion of the ground floor and the first floor, as per Ext. P1, the petitioner was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act then in force for a sum of Rs.8,000/-. This amount was paid by the petitioner and he started construction of the second floor. Meanwhile, the first respondent assessing authority issued Ext. P2 notice under S.9(2)/9(4) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 proposing to reassess the building and asking the petitioner to produce all documents relating to capital value of the building and title deed of the property. On receipt of Ext. P2, the petitioner produced all the documents before the first respondent assessing authority as also Ext. P3 representation requesting him to drop the proceedings proposed as per Ext. P2. However, the first respondent, without considering the various points raised in Ext. P3 passed Ext. P4 printed stereotyped order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.71,310/- as building tax. Aggrieved by Ext. P4, petitioner approached the second respondent revisional authority as per Ext. P5 who as per Ext. P7, dismissed the same simultaneously vacating the stay ordered as per Ext. P6 during the pendency of the revision.

(2.) Aggrieved by Ext. P7, petitioner moved the third respondent Government as per Ext. P8 petition (such a petition though shown in the index is not seen in the body of the O.P.) The third respondent, however, rejected Ext. P8. Ext. P9 is the valuation report submitted by the petitioner in respect of the building prepared by the Executive Engineer (Valuation). Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the orders of the respondents, viz. Exts.P1, P4 and P7, he moved this Court in O.P.No.4425 of 1989, which was disposed of by Ext. P10 judgment dated 21-2-1993 holding that the capital value fixed by the respondents is basically incorrect and the annual value of the building fixed by the local authority is relevant, although it can be departed from for sufficient reasons. In Ext. P10 judgment, there is a specific finding that the assessing authority did not show the basis on which the capital value was sought to be revised at Rs.9,75,600/- and it was the revisional authority/ second respondent for the first time chose to disclose those details.

(3.) Petitioner's main grievance is that the basis of the assessment was not disclosed in Ext. P1 original order of assessment nor in Ext. P2 notice proposing to revise the assessment nor in Ext. P4 order enhancing the assessment. It is under these circumstances that this Court as per Ext. P10 judgment remitted the matter back to the first respondent assessing authority for making a fresh assessment in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Pursuant to Ext. P10 judgment, the first respondent passed Ext. P11 order saddling the petitioner with liability to pay a sum of Rs.88,800/- in four equal quarterly instalments. Thereafter, petitioner filed Ext. P12 revision petition before the second respondent, who as per Ext. P13, dismissed the same confirming Ext. P11 order of the first respondent.