RAMACHANDRAN Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the first respondent assessing authority is bound to disclose the materials for resorting to an assessment under S.6(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) S.6 deals with as to how the capital value of the building has to be determined for the purpose of the Act. The 'capital value' of a building means the value arrived at by multiplying the annual value of a building by ten as defined in clause (f) of S.2. Sub-s. (1) of S.6 prescribes that the annual value of a building shall be the annual value fixed for that building in the assessment books of the local authority within whose area the building is situate. Sub-s. (2) says that if the assessing authority is of opinion that the annual value fixed for a building in the assessment books of the local authority is too low, it may, after giving the person or persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard fix the annual value of the building. Thus, the power is conferred on the assessing authority to determine the annual value of a building notwithstanding the availability of its capitalised value on the basis of the assessment books of the local authority. But, this power can be exercised only when the assessing authority is of opinion that the annual value fixed in the assessment books is too low. This cannot be a mere ipse dixit of the assessing authority; it must be supported by cogent materials. In other words, there must be sufficient reasons to say that the annual value as per the assessment books is too low.

(3.) By Ext. P1, the petitioner has been assessed to the building tax at Rs. 28,500/-. Ext. P1 contains Forms V and VI prescribed respectively under R.8(1) and 9 of the Kerala Building Tax Rules, 1974. Form V is prescribed for the order of assessment and Form VI is for demand notice. The capital value of the building was assessed to Rs. 5,47,500/- as per the demand notice. No materials are disclosed for fixing the said capital value either in Form V or VI. The specific case of the assessee is that before determining the annual value of the building under sub-s. (2) of S.6 no notice was issued to him. His further case is that the materials in support of such annual value had not been disclosed to him at any stage of the proceeding. On this question, the appellate authority in Ext. P2 observed thus: