Partly allowed

C.v.Vasudevan v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC18 Sept 2012WP(C)/4723/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Kerala Building Tax Act, contending it was passed without notice, violating natural justice. Court held the order violated natural justice as petitioner was not served notice. Directed Ext.P2 treated as notice, giving petitioner 4 weeks to file objections, after which first respondent must grant hearing and pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 assessment order will be treated as a notice. Petitioner granted 4 weeks to file objections. First respondent directed to afford hearing and pass fresh orders.

C.v.Vasudevan Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/27TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4723 of 2006 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.V.VASUDEVAN,ADVOCATE GEETHANJALI, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-18.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.P.UMA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR (THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE BUILDING TAX ACT), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA P.O.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOTTARAKARA.

¶12

*** ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IMPLEADED (VIDE SIDE LEAF)**

¶13

*ADDL. R3

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, QUILON

¶15

*ADDL.R4

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶17

( ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 AS PER VIDE ORDER DATED 07.03.2006 IN I.A.3384/2006)

¶18

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

dlk

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.4723 OF 2006(K)

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2012

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

In 1977 petitioner purchased 6 cents of land in Kottarakkara Kizhakkekara Village with a building therein. That building was reconstructed and according to the petitioner he filed the returns under the Building Tax Act also. In 2006, the 2^nd respondent has allegedly initiated fresh proceedings for assessment of the building under the Kerala Building Tax Act. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed mainly contending that the 2^nd respondent does not have any jurisdiction in the matter. During the pendency of the writ petition, first respondent completed the assessment and forwarded Ext.P2 assessment order to the petitioner along with Ext.P1 letter. Presently petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 assessment order mainly on the ground that the assessment was completed without issuing him notice or affording him an opportunity hearing in the matter.

¶29

WPC.No. 4723/2006

¶30

:2 :

¶31

On the other hand the instructions obtained by the Government Pleader suggests that notice was served on the occupant of the building. Even if it is assumed that the submission made by the Government Pleader is correct, still fact remains that the petitioner, who is a resident of Cochin has not been served notice before completing assessment by Ext.P2 order. Therefore, Ext.P2 assessment order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reason the order cannot be enforced. However, if in law the petitioner is liable to pay tax, the first respondent is entitled to continue the proceedings.

¶32

Therefore, I direct that Ext.P2 will be treated as a notice and it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P2, which he shall file before the first respondent within 4 weeks from today. It is directed that once objections are filed as above, the first respondent will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter.

¶33

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶35

vi/

¶36

WPC.No. 4723/2006

¶37

:3 :

C.v.Vasudevan v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Vasudevan v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrangathan Vs the Authorised Officer

Rachael George Thoppil Vs Federal Bank Limited

Thomas John Vs Union Bank of India

C.Haridas Vs Special Deputy Tahazildar

Lahu Ananda Dudhe Vs the Intelligence Officer

M/S.Damac Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax