Assessment of Property Tax finalised by the 2nd respondent, with respect to buildings bearing Nos.XVI/1186, XVI/1186(1), XVI/1186(2), XVI/1186(3), and 1186(A-Z) were challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the 1st respondent. The order passed by the appellate authority was again subjected to challenge in a revision petition before the 'Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions', Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P1 is the order of the Tribunal disposing the revision petition. The Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent had fixed the amount of 'Annual Value' of the buildings merely on a guess work, which cannot be accepted. The Tribunal found that the assessment made is unsustainable. It was also noticed that the 1st respondent had failed to take note of the contentions that the method by which the 'Annual Value' was arrived is not disclosed in the assessment orders. Further it was observed that the 1st respondent had failed in considering the 'Annual Value' of the buildings in question in the light of Section 234 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Hence the assessment and the appellate order were set aside. The 2nd respondent was directed to make fresh assessment of Property Tax with respect of the above said buildings, after rendering opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering his objections dated 7/3/2005.
2. Consequent to Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal the assessment was again finalised by the 2nd respondent after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had submitted a detailed statement before the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P3. But the 2nd respondent had issued a highly cryptic and nonspeaking order re-fixing the 'Annual Value' and the amount of Property Tax with respect to the buildings in question, without disclosing anything about the basis on which the 'Annual Value' was arrived. Nothing is discernible from Ext.P4 order to the effect that re-fixation was made after taking into consideration of the observation and directions contained in Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent the petitioner again invoked remedy of appeal before the 1st respondent. Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the 1st respondent through its decision dated 18/06/2007. But no proceedings of the 1st respondent was communicated to the petitioner, instead the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P6 order intimating the petitioner about re-fixation of tax based on the decision of the 1st respondent. Petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P6 in this writ petition.
3. Even though a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, nothing is mentioned about contentions regarding non-compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P1 order. It is stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to Ext.P1 order a personal hearing was conducted and Ext.P4 order was issued taking into consideration of all statutory conditions prescribed under Section 234(2) of the Municipality Act.
4. Without adverting to the factual contentions raised by the petitioner challenging the quantum of tax assessed with respect to each of the buildings, this court is satisfied that Exts.P4 and P6 orders are vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. In an assessment of Property Tax the assessee has got every right to know as to what exactly is the basis for fixation of the tax amount. In the case at hand it is pertinent to note that the assessment made earlier in violation of such mandatory requirement was already set aside by the Tribunal. The earlier order of assessment issued by the 2nd respondent as well as the appellate order issued by the 1st respondent were set aside specifically observing that the assessing authority is bound to disclose the basis on which the 'Annual Value' was arrived. Unfortunately in the consequential order issued by the 2nd respondent (Ext.P4) nothing is disclosed as to how the 'Annual Value' was arrived. It is a totally nonspeaking order issued, from which nothing is discernible with respect to the basis of such assessment. It is further pertinent to note that even the 1st respondent appellate authority had failed in issuing a detailed speaking order considering merits of the appeal.
5. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that Exts.P4 and P6 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P4 and P6 are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh after affording a fresh opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The assessment shall be made through a speaking order revealing the basis upon which the 'Annual Value' is fixed with respect to each of the buildings. Needless to observe that the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke statutory remedy available to him if he is in any manner aggrieved by such order issued.
6. Payment of Property Tax if any made with respect to the disputed period has to be appropriated in accordance with outcome of the fresh assessment.
The fresh assessment as directed above shall be done at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/-C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE MJL