Allowed

K.Abdurahiman Haji v. the Secretary,Tirur Municipality

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016WP(C)/1155/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged property tax demand notices demanding arrears for property rooms. The court compared the high amounts in notices with lower revised half-yearly rates in a prior order, directing the Municipality to levy tax only up to the revised rates.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent that tax due shall be realized only on the basis of the revised half-yearly rate fixed in Ext.P2.

K.Abdurahiman Haji Vs the Secretary,Tirur Municipality — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1155 of 2011 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, KONDACHAN HOUSE, NORTH ANNARA P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE SECRETARY, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676101.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C).No. 1155 of 2011 (T)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/7/2014

¶18

P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/8/2005

¶19

P3: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.18476 DATED 5/11/09

¶20

P4: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.18477 DATED 5/11/09

¶21

P5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.18478 DATED 5/11/09

¶22

P6: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.857 DATED 14/1/2010

¶23

P7: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.858 DATED 14/1/2010

¶24

P8: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18/2/2010 BY THE PETITIONER

¶25

P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/5/2010.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V. ASHA, J.

==================== W.P(C) No.1155 of 2011

¶33

==================== Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 notice demanding a

¶36

sum of Rs.41,970/- towards arrears of property tax

¶37

for the period from 2004-05 II to 2009-10 II in

¶38

respect of room Nos.A to I and Ext.P7, a similar demand notice for Rs.73,201/- for the same period in respect of room Nos.J to R.

¶39

According to the petitioner, property tax was revised in respect of all these rooms as per Ext.P2 dated 18.08.2005 as per which the half yearly tax was reduced to Rs.242/- in respect of room Nos.A, C to K and M to P. In respect of room No.B, it was fixed as Rs.306/-, in respect of room Nos.L, Q and R, it was fixed as Rs.402/-, Rs.819/- and Rs.1365/- respectively. Petitioner has also

¶40

W.P(C) No.1155 of 2011

¶41

-: 2 :-

¶42

produced a receipt dated 05.11.2009 stating that he had remitted the tax in respect of those buildings for the years 2009-2010. Hence there is no arrears due from him to be paid on the basis of Exts.P6 and P7 demand notices. Even though petitioner had submitted Ext.P8 representation stating that tax was already paid, the Municipality issued Ext.P9 order rejecting his request. In the meanwhile he had also filed W.P(C) No.12097 of 2010 as the representation was not being considered. On the basis of the direction contained in the judgment dated 07.04.2010 in the above writ petition his representation was considered and in Ext.P9 order dated 12.05.2010 it was stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected since it was found time barred and on the basis of the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation, petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the appeal. It is

¶43

W.P(C) No.1155 of 2011

¶44

-: 3 :-

¶45

stated that the respondent could not find any

¶46

records to accept the contention of the petitioner regarding revision or reduction of tax as claimed by the petitioner. It was at this stage that the petitioner approached this Court challenging notices, Exts.P6 and P7 and order, Ext.P9.

¶47

This Court admitted the writ Petition on

¶48

13.01.2011 and passed orders staying the operation of Exts.P6 and P7. It is seen that notice was sent from the Registry to the respondent on 19.01.2011. Though the notice was not returned after service, it

¶49

is seen that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent entered appearance as seen from the endorsement dated 09.03.2011. But the respondent has not filed any counter affidavit.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts

¶51

that the property tax was redetermined as per Exts.P2 and P3.

¶52

W.P(C) No.1155 of 2011

¶53

-: 4 :-

¶54

In the above circumstances, there shall be

¶55

a direction to the respondent that the tax due from the petitioner shall be realized only on the basis of Ext.P2. The respondent shall receive such payments until and unless it is revised subsequently.

¶56

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

P.V. ASHA, JUDGE.

¶58

vsv

¶59

W.P(C) No.1155 of 2011

¶60

-: 5 :-

K.Abdurahiman Haji v. the Secretary,Tirur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Abdurahiman Haji v. the Secretary,Tirur Municipality

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

N.P.Madhusoodhanan and Others Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, Fact

P.Gangadharan Vs Kerala Water Authority

M.B.Prakash Vs Kerala Garments Ltd.

Napees Mohammed Vs the Senior Commandant

M/S.Sudarsan Clays and Ceramics Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Rajamanickam Vs Shornur Muncipality