The petitioner was assessed to building tax by Ext.P1 order dated 15-1-1994. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed rectification application seeking rectification of the order. By Ext.P2 order dated 12-6-1995, Ext.P1 order was rectified and the liability of the petitioner was reduced to an amount of Rs. 6,600/-. It is the case of the petitioner that this amount was paid as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P3 (a) receipts. Thereafter, by Ext. P4 Notice dated 2-1-2001, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 32,200/- was payable towards building tax. Enquiries made by the petitioner revealed that the said amount was based on a revised assessment order (Ext.P5) which is stated to have been issued on 16-5-1998. Although the petitioner replied to Ext.P4 notice by Ext.P6 communication dated 19-6-2001, he was served with Ext.P7 Revenue Recovery Notice dated 18-10-2004. Thereafter, Ext.P9 order was passed by the first respondent directing the payment of the amount demanded from the petitioner by referring to the audit objection received, which apparently was the basis for Ext.P5 revised assessment order. This was followed by Ext.P11 Revenue Recovery Notice that was served on the petitioner. Exts.P7, P9 and P11 are impugned by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the respondents did not have any jurisdiction to revise Ext.P2 order after expiry of the period contemplated under the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein it is stated that based on an audit objection, a revised order was issued on 16-05-1998 for a sum of Rs.48,600 from which the amount of Rs.16,400/- that was first assessed was reduced and the petitioner was directed to remit the balance amount of Rs.32,200/-. The sequence of events leading to the issuance of the Revenue Recovery notice is also narrated in the counter affidavit.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I note that this is a case where, admittedly, the revised order dated 16-5-1998, that was stated to have been issued to the petitioner, and the receipt of which he has denied, was passed without hearing the petitioner. The said order is stated to have been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act which enables the Assessing Authority to rectify an order passed by him within a period of three years. Since the procedure that was contemplated under Sec. 15 has not been followed and no order was passed thereafter within the period specified under the said provision, the revised assessment order stated to have been passed by the respondents, cannot be legally sustained. Thus, I quash Exts.P5 and P9 orders as well as Exts.P7 and P11 Revenue Recovery Notice and declare that the assessment of the petitioner to building tax will be in accordance with Ext.P2 order dated 12-6-1995.
This Writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
ani/2/12
/truecopy/
P.S.toJudge