Partly allowed

Sreekumar v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC10 Jun 2016WP(C)/5979/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged proceedings under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 via writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to cure defects in the accompanying appeal within 15 days for the appellate authority to consider them within two months thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to cure defects in the appeal (Ext.P14) within 15 days. The appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate orders within two months after giving the petitioner a hearin

Sreekumar Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5979 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SREEKUMAR,

¶8

S/O. SREEDHARAN, KOPPARA VEEDU, MANAV NAGAR, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN:691 004.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE TAHSILDAR, (ASSESSING OFFICER), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶12

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶13

VILLAGE OFFICE, MANGAT, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

¶15

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶16

IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD.3.6.2016 IN IA.6954/2016.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

msv/

¶20

WP(C).No. 5979 of 2016 (V)

¶21

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANGAT. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.10.2015. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 31.12.2013. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 5.1.2016. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL IN RESPECT OF CONSUMER NO.6410. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL IN RESPECT OF CONSUMER NO.4225. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.11.2014. ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.11.2014. EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.8.1.2014. EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.17.1.2014. EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.1.4.2015. EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.19.1.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.5979 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 10^th day of June 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the assessing authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 calling upon him to pay the building tax as well as luxury tax for the building in question. Ext.P14 is produced along with an application filed before this Court as I.A.No.6954 of 2016. According to the petitioner, Ext.P14 is an appeal filed against the order passed by the Tahsildar.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader submits that there is no

¶31

basis for the contentions urged and the appeal apparently is defective for non-payment of the building tax and that there will be delay in filing the appeal as well.

¶32

Be that as it may, if the petitioner had preferred an appeal as Ext.P14, it is for the appellate authority to consider the appeal. If the appeal is defective, in any manner, the appellant shall cure the defects within a period of 15 days from today and thereafter, the appellate authority shall consider and pass

¶33

W.P.C.No.5979/2016

¶34

¶35

appropriate orders within a further period of two months, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶36

(sd/-)

¶37

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶38

jsr

Sreekumar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar 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

Psn Educational and Charitable Trust Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Faizal K M Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

V.C.Joy Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Rep.by Its Secretary

Sivakumar Vs the Authorised & Chief Manager Syndicate Bank

A.M.Aseem Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

M/S. Kanam Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner