The petitioner had constructed a three storied building and separate building numbers were assigned to each floor. By Ext.P2 order dated 04.04.1984, the petitioner's building was also assessed to building tax and the tax the amount was paid by the petitioner. On 21.10.2009 however, by Ext.P9 notice, the petitioner was intimated of a proposal to levy building tax on the said building. Although, by Ext.P10 reply the petitioner appraised the 2nd respondent of the fact that building tax on the building had already been paid, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P11 order, assessing the building to building tax again. In the writ petition, Exts.P9 and P11 are impugned, inter alia on the ground that the respondents have no authority to levy building tax for the 2nd time on a building that had already suffered tax.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the earlier assessment, that was done on the building based on the capital value, was in respect of a building which had a plinth area that was considerably lower than what it is today. The suggestion of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that in the year 1995-1996, the petitioner had effected modifications to an old building and thereby enhanced the total plinth area to the present level of 518.4 sq.metres, It is under these circumstances, that the petitioners resorted to the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Kerala Building Tax Act for levying differential tax on the petitioner in respect of the additional construction effected in 1995--1996.
3. I have heard the Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 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 note that the 1st assessment in respect of the building in question was by Ext.P2 order dated 4.04.1984. The 2nd assessment was through Ext.P11 order dated 16.08.2010. Ext.P2 order would indicate that the earlier assessment was prior to 10.02.1992 and therefore, even if additional constructions were effected by the petitioner in 1995- 1996, as alleged by the respondents, the assessments in respect of the new constructions would have to be in accordance with Section 5(3) of the Act, and not under Section 5(4) of the Act, as is done in the instant case. In view of the fact that the basis of assessment done by the 2nd respondent is wholly erroneous, I quash Ext.P11 assessment order and direct the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh assessment order, taking into account the provisions of Section 5 (3) of the Building Tax Act. The fresh orders as directed shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and shall be passed after hearing the petitioner and after adverting to the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of his contentions. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall be a speaking order containing reasons for his decision.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns