S RAFEEKA Vs. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is against Ext. P6 Government Order and also Ext. P8 and P8 (a) demand notices.

(2.) THE issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the levy of property tax in respect of a commercial complex constructed by the petitioners. According to them, they are constructed only the ground floor of the building, having a plinth area of 331 sq. mtrs. Petitioners submit that, they were issued Exts. P2 and P2 (a) demand notices, demanding an amount of Rs. 1,15,914/ -. Petitioners contend that, for quantifying the tax amount, annual rent was taken at the rate of Rs. 185. 5 per sq. ft and tax levied was at the rate of 32. 5 per sq. ft.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners seeks to impugn Exts. P8 and P8 (a) on the ground that those orders do not contain reasons for the levy, that is imposed on the petitioners. The counsel refers to the decisions reported in K. O. Kunju v. Executive Officer, Thrikkakara Panchayat and Another, 1984 KLJ 470 : 1984 KHC 251 : 1984 KLT 466 : 1984 KLN SN 26 and K. J. Joseph and Others v. Corporation of Cochin, 1987 (2) KLT 427 : 1987 KHC 483 : 1987 KLJ 1171 in support of this proposition. Objection is also taken to Ext. P6 on the ground that, it being only an administrative instruction, cannot override the statutory provision and that the Government can not place any fetter on the right of the appellate authority to grant relief as it deems fit. It is contended that, in respect of similar buildings located in areas, which are more commercially important, the property tax levied is much less than that is levied on the petitioner. Reference is made to Ext. P3, to support this contention.