Kerala High Court
Sreeni Parameswaran vs The Tahsildar on 23 February, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 261 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 4134/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SREENI PARAMESWARAN,AGED 48 YEARS
SON OF M.G. PARAMESWARAN, NAIR, VILLA NO.1, MYSTIC
BELLS, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, EROOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682306
BY ADV S.S.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR,
ASSESSING AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683513
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT
KOCHI, PIN - 682001
3 THE SUB REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHENGAMANADU,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683578
SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.261/2024
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of
the learned Single Judge in WP(c) No.4134/2024, dated 7 th
February, 2024. The writ petitioner is the appellant.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved
by the coercive proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent vide
Exts.P3 and P5 notices to recover the amounts due under the
Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for short, the Act).
3. The appellant is the Director of a private company viz.,
Shwas Homes Private Ltd. The company constructed two
multistoried residential apartments at Paravur viz., Moon Water,
which has a plinth area of 16475.93 sq. metres and Alpine Suites,
which has a plinth area of 13442.18 sq. metres. The 1 st
respondent/the assessing authority assessed the buildings under
the Act and passed an assessment order dated 18/1/2021. The
apartment named Moon Water was assessed at `39,81,672/-,
while the apartment named Alpine Suites was assessed at
`32,39,928/-. The appellant challenged the assessment order
before the 2nd respondent in the appeal. The 2 nd respondent
dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P1 order. Thereafter, the
appellant filed Ext.P2 application for rectification of Ext.P1 order
under Section 15 of the Act. During the pendency of Ext.P2, the
1st respondent issued Ext.P3 notice of demand of building tax and
Ext.P5 notice injuncting the appellant from transferring the
immovable property for non-payment of arrears of building tax.
The appellant challenged Exts. P3 and P5 in the writ petition. The
learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with directions
to the appellant to remit the first instalment of the building tax
and to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the appeal on merits. It is
challenging the said judgment; the appellant is before us.
4. We have heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Sri.P.B.Krishnan submitted that in the earlier round of litigation
challenging the building tax imposed, the appellant had paid 1/4 th
of the tax amount and hence a further direction to deposit 1/4 th of
the tax amount by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable.
We find merit in the said contention. The tax payment receipt
produced before us would show that the appellant had already
paid a sum of `21,91,518/- towards the arrears of building tax on
16/10/2017. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the 2 nd
respondent dismissed the appeal on the ground that the
appellant failed to produce the bank statement, which would
show that the money was pooled from the customers by the
company for construction and that the appellant failed to make a
deposit of the first instalment of the tax. The appellant preferred
Ext.P2 application, stating that, in fact, he had produced all the
documents before the assessing authority. As an abundant
caution, the appellant produced all the documents/records again
along with Ext.P2 application. While Ext.P2 application was
pending, the 1st respondent was not at all justified in issuing
Exts.P3 and P5 notices. At any rate, there is no adjudication on
the merits of the appeal preferred by the appellant against
Ext.P1 order. Since the appellant had remitted the first instalment
of the tax imposed, the 2 nd respondent ought to have adjudicated
the appeal on merits. In these circumstances, we are of the view
that instead of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and
dispose of Ext.P2 rectification application, it is just and proper to
direct him to dispose of the appeal itself on merits without
insisting on any further payment of tax.
Hence, this writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the
appellant challenging the assessment order in accordance with
law after hearing both sides within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Exts.P3 and P5
shall not be enforced till then.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure -1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
16/10/2017
Annexure -2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ISSUED
WHILE FILING APPEAL DATED 27/11/2017
Annexure-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER
DATED 18/01/2021
