Allowed

Regency Club v. R.D.O., Thrissur

Kerala HC24 Mar 2010WP(C)/9970/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's absence from an appeal hearing due to illness is condonable. It ordered the appellate authority to restore the appeal for consideration on merits within six weeks and set aside the dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P9 order set aside; appeal restored to files to be decided on merits within 6 weeks; Ext. P10 demand notice kept in abeyance.

Regency Club Vs R.D.O., Thrissur — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 9970 of 2010(U)

¶6

--------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

REGENCY CLUB, (CHARITABLE INSTITUTION REG.NO.140/1992), KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR-14, PIN-680 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.JOSSIE CHANDY.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.SARVOTHAMAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.

¶14

2. TAHSILDAR AND ASSESSING AUTHORITY, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TAXES AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SHAMSUDHEEN.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 9970 of 2010

¶21

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner claims to be a charitable institution registered under the relevant provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Institutions Registration Act, 1955. The case of the petitioner is that, the building constructed by the petitioner is entitled to get exemption as provided under Section 3(1)(b)of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Eventhough, Ext.P6 claim was raised before the 2^nd respondent/ assessing authority in this regard, the same was not properly considered and Ext.P7 assessment order was passed, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing W.P.(C).No. 6148/2009, culminating in Ext.P8 verdict. As per Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred appeal before

¶24

W.P.(C).No. 9970 of 2010

¶25

¶26

the 1^st respondent after remitting 1/4^th of the due amount as provided under the statute.

¶27

While so, a notice of hearing was issued, but the petitioner could not appear on the date of hearing, as he was laid up on that day. In the said circumstance, the 1^st respondent/appellate authority dismissed the appeal for default, also vacating the interim order of stay as per Ext.P9, followed by Ext.P10 demand notice; which are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶28

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has already moved an application before the 1^st respondent/appellate authority, seeking to have the appeal and I.A. to be restored to the files and to be dealt with on merits, which however, is stated as not accepted by the appellate authority.

¶30

After hearing both sides, this Court finds that the

¶31

W.P.(C).No. 9970 of 2010

¶32

¶33

basic issue is with regard to the eligibility for exemption and once such claim is to put forth, the assessing authority is bound to have it referred to the decision of the Government as provided under Section 3(2) of the Act. But whether the sequence of the events as narrated by the petitioner, is correct or not, is necessarily to be examined on merits in the appeal particularly when such appeal was preferred by the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment.

¶34

In the said circumstance, this Count finds that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity and hence default occurred in not being present before the appellate authority will stand condoned and the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be taken back to the files and the same shall be considered in accordance with law, passing appropriate orders thereon after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of

¶35

W.P.(C).No. 9970 of 2010

¶36

¶37

receipt of a copy of this Judgment. So as to facilitate such exercise, Ext.P9 order passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside and Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance till such final orders are passed in the appeal as above.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶40

Regency Club v. R.D.O., Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regency Club v. R.D.O., Thrissur

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

M/S.Thankam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib)

Thaha T.S. by P.a.Holder Hafsath Vs State of Kerala

M.Krishnadas Vs the District Collector and Others

Uco Bank, Thrissur Vs a.v.Moidunni

The Kadannamanna Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others

M/S. Lg Electronics India Vs Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)