Case Law Details
Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court)
In the case of Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir Vs State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court addressed the issue of maintainability of writ petitions against orders of the First Appellate Authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The court’s decision clarifies the limits of judicial review and emphasizes the availability of revisional remedies in tax disputes.
The appellant, Smt. Pathminim Legal Heir, challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge who dismissed her writ petition challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority. This order upheld the Tahsildar’s assessment of building tax and luxury tax on the appellant’s properties and remanded another issue for fresh consideration by the Tahsildar.
The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, considering that the impugned order was primarily a remand order. However, the appellant’s counsel argued that the Single Judge did not address the part of the order that confirmed the assessment, which was a direct grievance.
The Kerala High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision to the extent that the writ petition was not maintainable for challenging the confirmation of the assessment. The court reiterated that the appellant had an alternative remedy available through a Revision Petition before the District Collector under Section 13 of the Building Tax Act. It was concluded that a writ petition was not an appropriate remedy for this type of challenge.
The court allowed a limited modification by granting the appellant the opportunity to file a Revision Petition within one month from the receipt of the judgment copy. This ensures that the District Collector will consider the Revision Petition as timely and on its merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The appellant herein is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23896 of 2022 and she is aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.12.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:
The writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein, aggrieved by an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act (Ext.P16), that upheld the assessment order passed by the Tahsildar, assessing the buildings belonging to the appellant for building tax and luxury tax. By the said order, the Appellate Authority also remanded another issue to the Tahsildar-Assessing Authority for fresh consideration.
3. While disposing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge took note only of that portion of the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority that remanded one issue for fresh consideration by the Assessing Authority and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, since according to the learned Single Judge, Ext.P16 was only a remand order.
4. Before us, it is the submission of Sri. P. V. Vinod, the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not take note of the first portion of Ext.P16 order, which literally confirmed the assessment to building tax of the buildings of the appellant. He therefore, seeks to show us the factual errors committed by the First Appellate Authority, while confirming the order of the Assessing Authority, assessing the buildings to building tax.
5. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that even in respect of the first portion of Ext.P16 order of the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has an effective alternative remedy of preferring a Revision Petition before the District Collector under Section 13 of the Building Tax Act. A writ petition was never maintainable against Ext.P16 order in the first place. Accordingly, while sustaining the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, to the extent it considers the second portion of Ext.P16 order and relegated the appellant before the Tahsildar for a fresh consideration of the issue, we direct that as regards the first portion of Ext.P16 order, by which the First Appellate Authority affirmed the assessment order of the Tahsildar, assessing the buildings belonging to the appellant to building tax, the appellant is granted liberty to prefer a statutory revision before the District Collector (the second respondent herein). We make it clear that if the appellant prefers such a Revision petition before the District Collector within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the District Collector shall treat the said Revision Petition as one filed within time for the purposes of the Act and proceed to consider the Revision Petition on merits.
Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with.
The writ appeal is thus partly allowed.
Author Bio
