KURIAN GEORGE Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals and the Original Petitions were heard together as a common question of law arises for consideration. Petitioners in O.P.No. 10901 of 1990 are the appellants in W. A.No. 1320 of 1993 and the respondent in the O.P. is the appellant in W. A.No. 44 of 1994, A learned single Judge of this Court referred O.P.Nos. 1106 and 1541 of 1989 to a Division Bench with an observation that similar questions raised therein have been answered differently by this Court in different cases and those decisions require reconsideration.

(2.) The facts of the case in O.P.No. 10901 of 1990 are as follows:

(3.) It may be noted here that a hotel is being run in the building in the name and style M/s. Nisha Continental. In Ext. P1 return, the date of occupation of the building was shown as 4-11-1985 and the monthly rent thereof was shown as Rs.8,000/-. The capital value of the building was shown as Rs. 9,60,000/- But, the local authority fixed annual value at Rs. 1,06,832/-. On receipt of Ext. P1 return, details were got verified through the Revenue Inspector, who after conducting an enquiry submitted his report dated 19.4.1989. It was pointed out that the building had been let out to a firm in which the only partners are the two petitioners and their minor children. 12 rooms in the buildings are being are being used as lodge. The monthly rent as shown by the petitioners is wrong. On the basis of an estimation made by the Revenue Inspector the building tax would come to Rs. 2,36,658/- and the capital value of the building would come to Rs. 26,29,080/- Inspite of such a report the assessing authority issued Exts.P2 and P2(a) demand notice claiming tax of Rs. 80,582/- by fixing the capital value at Rs. 10,68,320/-.