Kerala High Court
Ramkumar vs The Tahsildar & Assessing Authority on 10 October, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:75401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 26841 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAMKUMAR,AGED 59 YEARS
WARRIATH, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O.,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 695013
2 ANILA RAMKUMAR,AGED 50 YEARS
WARRIATH, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O.,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690513
BY ADVS.
SREELAL N.WARRIER
MATHEW J.ELENJICKAL
ALKA WARRIAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE TAHSILDAR & ASSESSING AUTHORITY,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690516
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHINGOLI VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690516
SMT. JASMIN M.M, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:75401
WP(C) NO. 26841 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have approached this Court, challenging
Exts.P3 and P4 orders issued under the provisions of the Kerala
Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on a
short ground.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, though certain
documents showing that the building is one entitled to the benefit
of Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act, were produced,
the assessment orders do not appear to have considered the
documents produced by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that even in the statement filed in the writ
petition, it is clear that though certain materials were
available (that had been produced by the petitioners), the
same has not been considered by the Assessing Authority.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the
remedy of the petitioners against Exts.P3 and P4 would be to
file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the
provisions of the Act, and no ground has been made out for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2024:KER:75401
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. A perusal of
Exts.P3 and P4 do not indicate that the contention of the
petitioners that they are entitled to the benefits arising out of
the application of Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act has
been considered in a proper manner by the Assessing
Authority. A perusal of the statement filed in this Court
would also indicate that the petitioner had actually produced
certain materials before the Assessing Authority. In that view
of the matter, despite the availability of alternative remedy, I
am of the view that Exts.P3 and P4 orders can be set aside
with a direction to the Assessing Authority to complete the
assessment afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and having due regard to the materials that
has been produced by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed
quashing Exts.P3 and P4 and restoring the assessment
proceedings under the Act to the file of the 1 st respondent,
2024:KER:75401
who shall pass fresh orders, after affording a further
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and having due
regard to any materials that the petitioners may wish to rely
upon.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ajt
2024:KER:75401
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26841/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED VALUATION
STATEMENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01.01.2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
28.06.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.
TOKPLY/57/2024 DATED 28-6-2024
