Vadakke Madham Brahmaswam vs The Thrissur Municipal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20603 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

  TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943

                   WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2020

PETITIONER:

          VADAKKE MADHAM BRAHMASWAM,
          (A RESIDENTIAL VEDIC INSTITUTION)
          M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR - 680001,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          P.MADHAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
          AGED 49 YEARS,
          S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
          RESIDING AT POONGAD MANA,
          ANJUR P O, KUNNAMKULAM,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680523.
          BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          CORPORATION OFFICE,
          THRISSUR - 680001.
    2     THE SECRETARY
          THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE,
          THRISSUR - 680001.
    3     THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR APPEALS,
          THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE,
          THRISSUR,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 680001.
          BY ADV SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
          CORPORATION
 W.P.(C) No.17779/20
                                    -:2:-

       THIS     WRIT    PETITION    (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON    05.10.2021,   THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.17779/20
                                     -:3:-



                     BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                      -----------------------------------------
                         W.P.(C) No.17779 of 2020
                      ----------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 05th day of October, 2021

                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner is an institution imparting education in Vedas. A

commercial building was constructed by the petitioner and an

application was submitted for issuing an occupancy certificate on

29.03.2019. After issuance of occupancy certificate, the Municipality

raised a demand notice under the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax

and Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011, as is evident from

Ext.P5, Ext.P5(a), Ext.P5(b), Ext.P5(c) and Ext.P5(d).

2. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 series of demand notices, petitioner

preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the Standing Committee of the

Corporation. Petitioner alleges that in spite of filing an appeal,

without affording an opportunity of hearing and without even an order

being passed, the Municipality started demanding the alleged

property tax due from the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P10. It was

also pointed out that in Ext.P10 a reference is made to the dismissal W.P.(C) No.17779/20

of the appeal filed by the petitioner, even though no such orders

were ever communicated to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner

seeks for a direction to quash Ext.P10 after calling for the records

leading to the proceedings that resulted in Ext.P10. Reliefs in the

nature of a direction to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner

has also been sought for.

3. Respondents have filed a statement in which Annexure

R1(a) has been produced indicating that a decision was taken

relating to the appeal filed by the petitioner as decision No,2 on

25.11.19. On the aforesaid basis, the respondents submitted that the

writ petition merits only a dismissal.

4. I have heard the arguments of Adv.Binoy Vasudevan on

behalf of the petitioner as well as Adv.Santhosh P. Poduval, learned

Standing Counsel on behalf of the Corporation.

5. A perusal of Annexure R1(a) shows that a decision is

seemingly taken by the Corporation, that too, in one sentence stating

that "the fixation of tax is in accordance with law and it has has been

decided to affirm the same." There is no consideration of any nature

of the various contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 appeal.

Ext.R1(a) is a reflection of non-application of mind and does not W.P.(C) No.17779/20

justify the exercise of any appellate jurisdiction. The order is

contrary to the statute and makes a mockery of the concept of

appeal to the Standing Committee. No further consideration is

necessary to come to a conclusion that the orders leading to Ext.P10

are patently perverse and illegal.

6. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P10 and all proceedings that lead to

Ext.P10. It is also declared that the appeal preferred by the petitioner

as Ext.P6 shall stand restored to the files of the 3 rd respondent.

Ext.P6 shall be considered by the 3 rd respondent in accordance with

law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No.17779/20

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17779/2020

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER UNDER S.80 G(5) (VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 27.08.12 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.2559/13/REV DATED 06.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER DULY CERTIFIED BY THE ENGINEER IN APPENDIX FORM DATED 29.03.2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE OF THE BUILDING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT 14.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.06.19 BEARING NO. R3/PW3/BA/232/12-13 WITH RESPECT TO DOOR NO.36/1007/3 EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.06.19 BEARING NO. R3/PW3/BA/232/12-13 WITH RESPECT TO DOOR NO.36/1007/4 EXHIBIT P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.06.19 BEARING NO. R3/PW3/BA/232/12-13 WITH RESPECT TO DOOR NO.36/1007/5 EXHIBIT P5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.06.19 BEARING NO. R3/PW3/BA/232/12-13 WITH RESPECT TO DOOR NO.36/1007/6 EXHIBIT P5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.06.19 BEARING NO. R3/PW3/BA/232/12-13 WITH RESPECT TO DOOR NO.36/1007/7 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 16.07.2019.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE W.P.(C) No.17779/20

2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.07.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. R3/32453/19 DATED 18.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.

R.C2/100/2020/LSGD DATED 03.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF OFFICE FILE CONTAINING THE AGENDA RELATING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER PLACED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF OFFICE FILE CONTAINING THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UPON THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.8.20 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER