SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Ker) 230

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, B.N.PATNAIK
Kurian George – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar – Respondent


Judgment :-

Patnaik, J.

Both the appeals and the Original Petitions were heard together as a common question of law arises for consideration. Petitioners in O.P.No. 10901 of 1990 are the appellants in W.A.No.1320 of 1993 and the respondent in the O.P. is the appellant in W.A.No.44 of 1994. A learned single judge of this Court referred O.P. Nos. 1106 and 1541 of 1989 to a Division Bench with an observation that similar questions raised therein have been answered differently by this Court in different cases and those decisions require reconsideration.

2. The facts of the case in O.P.No. 10901 of 1990 are as follows:

The Petitioners are the owners of a 4 storied building having a plinth area of 303 Sq. meter each bearing Sy. No. 18/1-2 of Muttambalam Village within the limits of Kottayam Municipality. The construction was completed in October, 1985. The petitioners filed a return under section 7 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. On a consideration of the return, the Tahsildar, Kottayam (Assessing authority) determined the capital value of the building as Rs. 1068320/-. An amount of Rs. 80,582/- was assessed as tax in Ext. P2 order dated 27.11.1989. The petitioners were directed to re






























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top