This judgment set aside an municipal corporation order that merely reaffirmed a prior tax assessment without addressing specific objections raised by the petitioner following a tribunal remand for fresh consideration.
Order Ext.P16 set aside on technical grounds; directed fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/13TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 16772 of 2008 (V)
PETITIONER:
L.MOHANAN, T.C.NO.1035(5 & 6), RISHI MANGALAM, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.V.VINAY MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY.
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R BY SRI. P.K.MANOJ KUMAR R BY SRI. P.K.MANOJ KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 16772 of 2008 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 03.03.2003 IN RESPECT THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING
03.03.2003 IN RESPECT THE 1ST FLOOR OF THE PETITONER'S BUILDING
P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.03.2003
P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.2149/1990 DATED 23.07.1990
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.03.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING
P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.03.2003 ISSUED BY the 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST FLOOR OF THE PETITOINER'S BUILDING
P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.04.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING
P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR APPEAL OF TAXATION DATED 30.04.2003
P9: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF SMT. VILASINI FOR HER BUILDING DATED 08.12.1999
P10: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ONE GEETHAKUMARI THANKACHI
P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.09.2003 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE PETITOINER'S BUILDING
P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.09.2003 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST FLOOR OF THE PETITOINER'S BUILDING
P13: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05.05.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE ARREARS OF THE BUILDING TAX
P14: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.26386/2004 DATED 15.03.2007
P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2008 IN REV. NO.42/2007
P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
W.P.(C) No. 16772 of 2008 (V)
Dated: 5th October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The challenge is against Ext.P16 order of the Corporation, which assessed tax on the petitioner's house by reiterating the earlier order. The petitioner had challenged the original assessment before the Standing Committee, the Appellate Authority and then before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as per Ext.P15, directed reconsideration of the issue. The Corporation passed Ext.P16 merely holding that the assessment is proper. The said exercise is not proper, especially, when a reconsideration is directed. The objections have to be gone into and a fresh consideration made. The party who is aggrieved should be heard and his contentions met in the order; which has not been done,
W.P.(C) No. 16772/2008
-2-
as is seen from Ext.P16.
The writ petition is disposed of, without any observation on the merits. No Costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 6/10/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an order reiterating an earlier assessment without addressing renewed objections renders reconsideration procedurally improper.
L. MOHANAN
THE CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM
THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
