AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Petitioner is aggrieved by an order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dismissing his appeal filed under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, stating the same to be belated.
Petitioner is the owner of a residential building situated in Survey No.295/8-2 of Kanjikuzhy Village. According to the petitioner, the total floor area of the building is less than 278.70 sq.mtr., and therefore, he cannot be mulcted with the liability of luxury tax. Petitioner alleges that, the assessing authority had, without verifying the actual extent proceeded to impose building tax as well as luxury tax on the building, ignoring the certificate issued by the Grama Panchayath and without even any actual verification. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority due to a delay in preferring the appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that since a remedy in the form of a revision under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 is available to the petitioner, he ought to have pursued the said remedy.
Notwithstanding the above, on a perusal of Ext.P2, it is noticed that the order of assessment of building tax has been issued without providing any reason or details. Ext.P1 is stated to be a certificate issued by the Grama Panchayath, in which it is mentioned that the total area of the building, after excluding the open area, is only 275 sq.mtrs. The said document has a bearing on the subject matter of the dispute. If the said certificate of the Panchayath is correct, then certainly the contention of the petitioner deserves consideration.
A reading of Ext.P2 reveals that assessing officer has not considered any of the relevant aspects. There is no mention of the manner in which the area of the building was arrived at and also whether there is any area that could be excluded from consideration.
Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P2 is a non-speaking order that require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P2 and consequently Ext.P3 also and direct that the matter be reconsidered, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
This wit petition is allowed as above.