Kerala High Court
Linta Purayidathil Jose vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
LINTA PURAYIDATHIL JOSE,
AGED 38 YEARS
XIII/257, POPEES BUILDING,
PATHIRIYAL, POONTHOTTAM,
THIRUVALI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 123,
(PROPRIETOR, AIBEL APPARELS).
BY ADV E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA, NEAR MINI-CIVIL STATION,
PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA.
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
NILAMBUR, TALUK OFFICE,
NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTICT-679 329
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THIRUVALLI, THIRUVALLI VILLAGE OFFICE,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 348
DR.THUSHARA JAMES-SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
===========================
W.P(C) No.18417 of 2021
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17 th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 assessment order issued
under the Kerala Building Tax Act. According to the
petitioner, the order impugned has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice as petitioner
was never heard nor is any application of mind
reflected in the order.
2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions
submitted that the petitioner was in fact heard on
25.10.2018 and was even directed to produce
documents to justify his claim that the building is
used as a factory to get the benefit of exemption.
3. I have heard Adv.E.C.Ahamed Fazil, the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Dr.Thushara
James, the learned Government Pleader.
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances
arising in the case as well as the submission made as
above, I am of the view that the order impugned,
though appealable, does not reflect any hearing
having been conducted by the 3 rd respondent. The
order does not reflect even the alleged opportunity
given to the petitioner to produce the required
documents. The order is seen to be issued in a
mechanical manner without any application of mind
and, hence, the same is liable to the set aside.
5. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the 3 rd
respondent to give notice of hearing to the petitioner
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
after considering the objections and the documents
that may be produced by the petitioner in support of
his alleged claim. Needless to mention, the
proceedings contemplated under law when a claim
for exemption is raised shall also be complied with,
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021
if such claim is put forth.
6. The proceedings directed as above, shall be
completed with an outer limit of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petitioner shall treat this judgment as sufficient
notice to appear before the 3 rd respondent on
05.10.2021.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,
JUDGE
AMV/18/09//2021
WP(C) NO. 18417 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18417/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF GST REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER ISSUED
BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LISCENSE NO. 118/2021-2021/B1/938
DATED 01.04.2021 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM
THIRUVALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER CUM DEMAND NOTICE
NO. C4/16031/2018 03.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE
TAHSILDAR.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL
TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
