Mary C.George vs The Tahsildar on 25 July, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Mary C.George vs The Tahsildar on 25 July, 2008

Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36412 of 2004(I)


1. MARY C.GEORGE, NO.37/2051-A,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHSILDAR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.CHACKO GEORGE (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :25/07/2008

 O R D E R
                  T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

                    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                      W.P.(C). No.36412/2004-I
                    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                 Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order of assessment under the Building Tax Act and the demand notices issued pursuant thereon. The challenge is against the assessment of building tax as well as the imposition of luxury tax. The building in question was constructed by the petitioner in her property, 7.670 cents in extent, in Survey No.435/1, in Elamkulam Village. The building consists of two separate and independent residential units, i.e., the ground floor and the first floor comprising of separate sets of bed rooms, sitting room, kitchen, toilets etc., with separate access. It is also pointed out that the two residential units were allocated separate house numbers and assessed separately to property tax, by the Corporation of Kochi. These are evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. The two residential units were allocated separate consumer numbers for electric connection from the Kerala State Electricity Board. The petitioner and her husband are living in the ground floor unit from 20/08/2004. W.P.(C).NO.36412/2004-I -:2:-

2. The petitioner was then served with Exts.P3 and P4, assessment order and demand notice respectively, even though it appears that the authorities had visited the site for taking out the measurement etc. The petitioner has taken various grounds in the writ petition to sustain the challenge. Mainly it is contended that when one structure is comprised of several independent residential units, the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to assess them separately, as a one composite unit. The imposition of luxury tax is also challenged on that ground.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the assessment.

4. In the light of the fact that Ext.P3 is actually a non speaking one, in the sense that the basis of assessment is not disclosed thereon, I find that the petitioner will have to be relegated to the remedy of appeal before the concerned authority. Therefore, if the petitioner files an appeal within a period of one month from today, the appellate authority will hear the matter on merits and dispose of the same after considering the grounds raised by the petitioners. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner has already paid Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, till the appeal is disposed of, the interim order of stay granted by this Court will W.P.(C).NO.36412/2004-I -:3:- continue. On receipt of the appeal, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within a further period of three months.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court