Allowed

B. Radhakrishnan, v. Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC14 Sept 2023WP(C)/10878/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against an order rejecting a statutory appeal on appeal against demand notice for property tax paid by legal heirs, challenging arbitrary dismissal without reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.03.2023 set aside. Appellate authority directed to intimate defects or provide reasons and decide appeal on merits within one month. Copy of assessment order to be issued to pe

B. Radhakrishnan, Vs Kozhikode Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 23TH BHADRA, 1945

¶4

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 57 YEARS
'GAYATHRY', MANJUNATHA RAO ROAD, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT., PIN – 673 005.

¶7

2B. VENUGOPAL,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. LATE SHRI. N.B. KRISHNA KURUP, 'GAYATHRY',
MANJUNATHA RAO ROAD, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN – 673 005.

¶8

3B. JAYASREE,
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O. LATE SHRI. N.B. KRISHNA KURUP,'GAYATHRY',
MANJUNATHA RAO ROAD, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN – 673 005.

¶9

4B. USHA KUMARI,
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O. LATE SHRI. N.B. KRISHNA KURUP,'GAYATHRY',
MANJUNATHA RAO ROAD, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN – 673 005.

¶10

5B. SOBHANA,
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O. LATE SHRI. N.B. KRISHNA KURUP,'GAYATHRY',
MANJUNATHA RAO ROAD, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN – 673 005.

¶11

BY ADVS.
RAJ CAROLIN V.
C.R.JAYAKUMAR
NOBEL RAJU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶14

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673 011.

¶17

2 THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673 011.

¶18

3 STANDING COMMITTEE FOR TAXATION AND FINANCE, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673 011.

¶19

BY ADV SANTHOSH KUMAR G

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶24

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

¶25

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2023

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The present writ petition has been filed, impugning Ext.P9 order issued by the 3^rd respondent Standing Committee for Taxation and Finance, Kozhikode.

¶30

The father of the petitioners, Sri.N.B.Krishna Kurup has constructed a commercial building within the municipal limits of the 1^st respondent. The father of the petitioners died on 24.04.2018, leaving behind the property including the partly constructed building. And the building permit devolved upon the petitioners as the legal heirs along with their mother Smt. Barghavi Amma who expired on 18.03.2023.

¶31

It is submitted that the petitioners are the only remaining legal heirs of the property. The said

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶34

building was assessed to the property tax under the provisions of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. A Demand Notice in Form 9 under Rule 16 (1) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules, 2011; has been issued directing the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.7,69,550/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) within fifteen days. This demand notice is in respect of the tax liability for the financial years 2018-2019, 20192020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.

¶35

The petitioners filed Ext.P8 appeal against the demand notice. However, the said appeal has been rejected by Ext.P9 order, stating that the appeal was not legal. No reasons are assigned in the impugned order to the effect that the appeal was not legal. Ext.P8 appeal is a statutory appeal and therefore, the appellate authority is required to consider the appeal on its merit. The appeal could not be dismissed by an order saying that the appeal was not legal. If the

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶38

appeal has any defect, the same should be intimated to the petitioners. The approach adopted by the appellate authority is unacceptable and illegal.

¶39

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, Ext.P9 is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to intimate the reasons or the defects in the appeal, so that the same can be cured and the appeal should be heard and decided on merit.

¶40

The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have not been served with the assessment order.

¶41

The 2^nd respondent is directed to provide a copy of the assessment order to the petitioners within a period of ten days from today. The petitioners may amend the appeal to challenge the assessment order. Once the petitioners removed the defects, the appeal should be heard and decided on merits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month,

¶42

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Till a decision is taken by the appellate authority on the stay application in the appeal, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 notice shall stands stayed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

rpr

¶49

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10878/2023

¶52

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶53

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY` `THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.` `E/TP4/64418/10 DATED 29/06/2012.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 642/2013` `DATED 19/10/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR` `LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER UNDER THE SECOND` `RESPONDENT BEARING NO. TP6/46499/18 DATED` `21/08/2018.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED PERMIT ISSUED BY THE` `SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER UNDER THE SECOND` `RESPONDENT BEARING NO. TP9/46499/18 DATED` `19/03/2019.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED` `BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING FILE NO.` `TP6/46499/18 DATED 23/05/2018.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN IN FORM II RECEIVED` `BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAYANAD DATED` `30/03/2019.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ARREAR DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED` `BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2022.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE` `THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2022 ALONG WITH` `THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT` `BEARING NO. 98311 DATED 20/12/2022.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE THIRD/` `RESPONDENT BEARING NO. NO. A22/98107/22 DATED` `08/03/2023 AND RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON` `13/03/2023.`

¶54

WP(C) NO. 10878 OF 2023

¶55

¶56

Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO. 28/1677-A DATED
08/03/2023.
Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER JUDGEMENT DATED
26/11/2020 IN WA NO. 1533/2020 BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P10True copy of the English translation of
Exhibits P10.
Exhibits P3True copy of the English translation of
Exhibits P3.
Exhibit P4True copy of the English translation of
Exhibits P4.
Exhibit P7True copy of the English translation of
Exhibits P7.
Exhibit P9True copy of the English translation of
Exhibits P9.

B. Radhakrishnan, v. Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Radhakrishnan, v. Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

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

Madhu Vs the District Collector

Binoj Kumar K.T Vs Anoob.K.C

Girish G Krishnan, Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Binshad P.M., Vs State of Kerala

Cherian Kariyakulath Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Grace Rony, Vs the Secretary