The petitioner is a contractor who constructed a multi storied building/shop rooms in a building under the name 'Landmark Enclave'. It is stated that the petitioner is a co-owner of the building also. The issue in the writ petition is with regard to the manner in which the building had to be assessed for the purposes of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. While the case of the petitioner was that the building had to be assessed as separate units based on the separate ownership of the flats within the building, the building tax assessment was completed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 order treating the building as a single unit for the purposes of assessment. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent Appellate Authority. By Ext.P8 order, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that, by Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, an apartment or flat could be assessed separately only if the party produced sufficient documents to prove that the cost of construction of the building was met by the flat owners jointly, and the petitioner had not produced any document to prove this fact. Although the petitioner had an alternate remedy against Ext.P8 order by way of a revision before the District Collector, he chose not to pursue that remedy and challenged Ext.P8 appellate order, together with Ext.P9 revenue recovery notice, before this Court in the present writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein Ext.P8 appellate order of the 1st respondent is sought to be justified by pointing out that the 1st respondent had no option but to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner, on account of non-production of valid documents by the petitioner to substantiate his contentions that the cost of construction of the building was jointly met by the different co-owners of the building. It is also pointed out that the return for assessment to building tax was filed jointly by the petitioner and Smt.Sarala Viswanathan and that the occupancy certificate of the building, plan and permit were in their joint names. The appellate order of the 1st respondent is justified on these facts and it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Sri.U.N.Pradeep Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Smt.Lilly.K.T., the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the petitioner had not produced any valid documents before the 1st respondent to establish that the assessment in respect of the building had to be done separately in the name of individual apartment owners. That apart, the occupancy certificate of the building, plan and the permit were in the joint names of the petitioner and Smt.Sarala Viswanathan. On the basis of the materials available before the First Appellate Authority, I do not think it was open to the said authority to reach any other conclusion than what was found in Ext.P8 appellate order. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P8 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent or Ext.P9 revenue recovery notice issued pursuant thereto. Resultantly, the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp