Allowed

A.P.Moideenkutty Haji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2016WP(C)/2704/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an assessing authority order imposed without a pre-assessment notice. The Court held that the order violated the principles of natural justice and set it aside, directing the authority to issue proper notices to owners before assessment.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P6 and P8 are set aside. The assessing authority is directed to issue notice to actual owners and make an assessment after giving a fair opportunity within two months.

A.P.Moideenkutty Haji Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2704 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

A.P.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, S/O. MAMMIKUTTY, ANNACHAMPALLY, CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-696 101.

¶12

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.P.PRADEEP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

WP(C).No. 2704 of 2016 (K)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2748/2005 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, TIRUR.

¶19

P2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.6842220 DATED 20.04.2010.

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO. 86447433 DATED 20.10.2012.

¶21

P4 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.221/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 30.06.2015.

¶22

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER ERSTWHILE CO-OWNERS IN O.S.NO. 221/2015 DATED 04.10.2015.

¶23

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K2/11859/2007 DATED 22.12.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P7 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.K2/11859/2007 DATED 22.12.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.2704 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 3^rd day of October 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6 and P7. Ext.P6 is an order passed by the assessing authority under the Kerala Building tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by which the petitioner was called upon to remit an amount of Rs.3,45,600/-. Ext.P7 is the order by which instalment facility has been granted to the petitioner.

¶34

The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, along with certain others, constructed a building in a property. No assessment was made under the Act. However, steps seems to have been taken by the assessing authority against the subsequent purchaser against whom an assessment order was passed. He preferred an appeal before the District Collector who remitted the matter back to the assessing authority to take proceedings against the actual owners of the property. In the meantime, the subsequent purchaser Sri.Hussain had paid a few instalments towards the building tax and he filed a suit O.S.No.221/2015 before the Munsiff Court, Tirur seeking

¶35

W.P.C.No.2704/2016

¶36

¶37

recovery of the amount from the petitioner and other co-owners. While so, pursuant to the order passed by the District Collector, Ext.P6 order had been passed imposing on the petitioner an amount of Rs.3,45,600/-. According to the petitioner, there is no notice in terms of Section 7(3) or 9(2) of the Act and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. Perusal of Ext.P6 order would indicate that the order was served on the petitioner and Smt.Khadeeja, who are also the owners of the property. According to the petitioner, there are other co-owners as well who are arrayed as defendants in O.S.No.221/2015.

¶38

The specific contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P6 order has been passed without notice. None of the details regarding service of notice on the petitioner have been specified in Ext.P6 order. It is only mentioned that notice was issued to the holders of the building.

¶39

Having regard to the fact that pre-assessment notice had not been issued to the petitioner, this is a fit case in which the writ petition has to be allowed on the ground that there is violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶40

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶41

W.P.C.No.2704/2016

¶42

¶43

i) Exts.P6 and P8 are set aside.

¶44

ii) The assessing authority under the Act shall, after issuing notice to the actual owners of the property, make an assessment, after giving a fair opportunity to file their objections to the proposal for assessment.

¶45

iii) Proceedings shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

(sd/-)

¶47

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶48

jsr

A.P.Moideenkutty Haji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Moideenkutty Haji v. State of Kerala

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

Sunil Sekhar S. Vs Saju George, Secretary, Kerala Psc

Kishan K. Shylajan Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner (Wc)

Joseph O.J.@ Kunjumon Vs Authorised Officer

K.Mohandas Vs the Guruvayoor Municipality

Amal Chandran Vs the University of Kerala