VIJAYA RAGHAVAN Vs. CORPORATION OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Kozhikode, in C.M.A.No.33 of 1989. Petitioner is the owner of a buildingAmaravathy in Kozhikode Taluk. The above building was leased out by the petitioner to one Shyamala for a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- on 10.1.1986. The above said Shyamala executed a Koolikaichit in favour of the petitioner in which the rent of the building is mentioned as Rs. 450/- p.m.. On 24.11.1988, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent stating that the annual value of the building was increased to Rs. 30,000/ from Rs. 4,200/- and hence the half yearly property tax was enhanced from Rs. 396.50 to Rs. 2,831.81. Petitioner filed a petition before the Standing Committee challenging the correctness of the assessment of the annual rental value and the Standing Committee confirmed the assessment by order dated 26.11.1988. C.M.A. No. 33 of 1989 was filed in the District Court, Kozhikode, challenging the decision of the Standing Committee.

(2.) The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case and by saying that the appeal was not competent since the tax the petitioner had to pay as a condition precedent to the hearing the appeal had not been remitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had satisfied all the conditions to be fulfilled before the hearing of the appeal. It is stated in the revision petition that the appeal was filed within time and notice of intention to appeal had also been given. As regards the payment of tax, the petitioner would say that he had remitted the tax as it stood before the enhancement.

(3.) Schedule II of the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act contains Taxation Rules. In Part V of Sch. II, there is R.24(a) which says that an appeal shall lie to the District Court having jurisdiction over the city against any decision of the Standing Committee. It is also provided therein that no such appeal shall be heard by the District Court unless a notice of intention to appeal has been given to the Commissioner within ten days from the date on which such decision was communicated by registered post. There is no case that the above provision has not been complied with by the petitioner. The further provision in R.24 if that no appeal shall be heard by the District Court unless the petition of appeal has been presented without fourteen days from the date on which the decision was communicated by registered post and the tax has been paid within the said period. The appeal has been filed by the petitioner within 14 days from the date of communication of the decision of the Standing Committee. The petitioner paid tax at the rate prevalent before the revision which is questioned here. In the Explanation to sub clause (a) of R.24, it is made clear that in the case of tax leviable by half-yearly instalments the requirements under clause (ii) as to payment of tax shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the half-yearly instalment due under order appealed against has been paid. What the Explanation says is that the payment of tax which is stated as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal is the payment of half-yearly instalment due under the order appealed against. So the half-yearly instalment of the revised tax has to be paid as per the above said Explanation.