Allowed

E.S.Jose v. Tahsildar,Kanayannur

Kerala HC19 Nov 2007OP/480/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that assessments deviating from filed returns must be accompanied by speaking orders. As the tax was levied for the whole building as a single unit without inspection or separate consideration for flats owned by different individuals, the assessment was cancelled. The Tahsildar was directed to conduct an inspection, provide an opportunity to produce details, and complete the ad

What did the court decide?

Cancellation of assessment orders Exts. P6 and P7; direction to Tahsildar to make fresh assessment after inspection within four months.

E.S.Jose Vs Tahsildar,Kanayannur — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 480 of 1999(F)

PETITIONER:

E.S.JOSE, DIRECTOR, A 2 Z BUILDERS PVT. LTD., P.T.USHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682011.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SRI.V.BOVAN CHERIAN VARKEY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

REVENUE INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PRADEEP

¶19

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER ON CMP NO.803/1999 IN O.P. NO.480/1999

¶21

DISMISSED:

¶22

19.11.2007

¶23

SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

P1 SERIES: TRUE COPIES OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS NOS. FROM 35590 TO 42616 DT.3.10.96 AND 30.10.1996 (26 IN NUMBER) ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P2: TRUE COPY OF NOICE DT.9.3.98 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.16.7.98 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶29

P4:TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.15.9.98 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶30

P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.28.9.98 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶31

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR DT.29.9.98.

¶32

P7: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.29.9.98 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶33

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.31.10.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR.

¶34

P9: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.1.12.98 ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE R.D.O., FORT KOCHI.

¶35

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.13.11.98 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR.

¶36

P11: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT.5.12.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR.

¶37

P12: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.24.12.98 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶38

P13: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.30.12.98 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIOENR WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶39

TRUE COPY

¶40

PA TO JUDGE

¶41

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶42

.................................................................... O.P. No.480 of 1999

¶43

Dated this the 19th day of November, 2007.

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

This court has consistently held that building tax assessments in deviation from returns filed should be completed through speaking orders giving reasons in support of demand of tax. The building assessed is a complex of 27 residential apartments. It is seen from Ext.P7 demand notice that tax is demanded for the building under the category "other buildings". Petitioner's case is that buildings are constructed with the funds of the owners of flats and therefore each and every flat has to be separately assessed. It is seen from Ext.P6 that assessment is completed for the whole building as a single unit because petitioner did not appear and produce records. Further, the Tahsildar also does not appear to have inspected the building even to satisfy the nature of building assessed. In the circumstances, I dispose of the O.P. cancelling Exts.P6 and P7 with direction to the Tahsildar to make fresh assessment after conducting inspection and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce details of construction and other particulars about ownership and nature of building. The Tahsildar is directed to complete adjudication within four

¶46

¶47

months from now. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of this

¶48

judgment before the Tahsildar for compliance.

¶49

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶50

pms

E.S.Jose v. Tahsildar,Kanayannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.S.Jose v. Tahsildar,Kanayannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Manikandaraja Vs District Collector, Palakkad

A.Nilavarneesa Vs Addl.Sales Tax Officer

Abdulrahman.B.a. Vs P.M.Babu

M/S.Gajanana Agencies Vs the Intelligence Officer,Kasaragod

Nassar Vs the Tahsildar