Case Law Details
C.Y Cherian Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court addressed a petition filed by C.Y. Cherian seeking to quash an order (Ext.P3) and a direction for the reassessment of building tax on his property in Sulthan Bathery based on the plinth area approved by the local authority. The petitioner, having obtained a building permit (Ext.P1), was assessed a building tax of ₹12,42,800/-. The petitioner initially complied with the assessment by paying the first installment. Subsequently, he requested the assessing authority to cancel the recovery proceedings by accepting a portion of the assessed amount as full settlement. This request was denied by the assessing authority via Ext.P3, which stated that the assessment order was passed earlier, and due to non-payment of the full amount, revenue recovery proceedings had been recommended. The petitioner challenged this communication before the High Court.
The Kerala High Court, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the writ petition. The court emphasized that under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, once a tax assessment order is issued, the assessing authority’s role is essentially complete for that particular tax period. The Act provides specific statutory avenues for individuals aggrieved by an assessment order, namely appeal and revision. In this case, the petitioner failed to utilize these statutory remedies, allowing the assessment order to become final. Therefore, the High Court deemed recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India as inappropriate. Furthermore, the court noted the petitioner’s initial acceptance of the assessment by paying the first installment, highlighting that his subsequent request to settle the entire tax liability by paying only a portion is legally unsound. The court firmly stated that once tax has been assessed, the full amount must be paid unless the government introduces specific amnesty schemes. Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the petition but clarified that its dismissal was without prejudice to any other remedies available to the petitioner under the relevant Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner seeks for a direction to quash Ext.P3 and also for a direction to reconsider Ext.P2 and assess building tax on petitioner’s building as per the plinth area in the plan approved by the local authority.
2. Petitioner is the owner of a property situated in Resurvey No.199/25 and 199/26 of Block No.18 of Sulthan Bathery. The building was constructed by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 permit and thereafter the owners were assessed to building tax to the tune of Rs.12,42,800/-.
3. Acquiescing into the order, the first instalment of the said order of assessment was paid by the petitioner. In the meantime, petitioner filed a request letter before the assessing authority to cancel the proceedings initiated against him by accepting a portion of the amount assessed and avoid further proceedings. The said letter was responded to by the assessing authority as per Ext.P3 stating that the assessment order was passed on 27.01.2023 and that since there was failure to pay the amount due, revenue recovery proceedings have already been recommended. The aforesaid communication is challenged by the petitioner.
4. I have heard Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Jasmin M.M., the learned Government Pleader.
5. The Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 provides for assessment of building tax. Once an order of assessment is passed, the assessing authority becomes practically functus officio for the purpose of building tax. The remedy of a person aggrieved by an order of assessment is to prefer statutory appeal and revision as provided under the Act. In the absence of any statutory remedy invoked by the petitioner, the assessment order became final. Therefore recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper.
6. In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, petitioner had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed. Such a procedure is unheard in law. Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed without prejudice to the remedies, if any available under the Act.
Author Bio
