Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31705
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SURESH BHAT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/22703/2021
SRINATH GIRISH P.JERIL BABU
An assessment order is invalid if it lacks reasoning and fails to demonstrate any application of mind, allowing for judicial intervention without exhausting appellate remedies.
Headnote:
Assessment - Kerala Building Tax Act - Section 7 - The court found the assessment order to be a non-speaking order lacking application of mind, thus invalidating it and allowing the petitioner to file a new return for reassessment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an undated assessment order from the Kerala Building Tax Act, claiming it lacked reasoning and application of mind, which prevented him from pursuing appellate remedies effectively.
Issues: The main issue was whether the undated and non-speaking assessment order under the Kerala Building Tax Act was valid and if the petitioner must pursue appellate remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a non-speaking order, lacking application of mind, is legally unsustainable, allowing the petitioner to file a return for reassessment rather than being relegated to appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the assessment order is set aside.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of assessment issued by the second respondent under the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975.
2. A perusal of the order of assessment reveals that the same is not dated and further, that there is no application of mind evident in the impugned order. Apart from a mere filling up of blanks, nothing is stated as to how the conclusion in the order of assessment was arrived at, and that too at the figure of Rs. 2,88,000/-. Ex facie the order impugned is a non-speaking order and is issued without any application of mind.
3. Petitioner submits that even though there is an appellate remedy available to him, in view of the fact that the order is undated, he is not in a position to even quantify the days available for filing the appeal. Further, along with Ext.P4, petitioner was served with a revenue recovery notice which is also contrary to law and hence recourse to appellate remedy would cause prejudice to the petitioner.
4. On a consideration of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.Srinath Girish as well as the learned Government Pleader, Smt.Sabeena P. Ismail. I am of the view that this writ petition itself can be disposed of.
5. No doubt, the order impugned is a non-speaking order and non application of mind is evident on the face of it. In such circumstances, petitioner need not be relegated to the statutory remedy.
Ext.P4 order of assessment issued against the petitioner under the Kerala Building Tax Act is set aside and the petitioner is directed to file a return in accordance with Section 7 of the within a period of 30 days from today and the second respondent shall hear the petitioner and pass fresh assessment orders thereon within a period of 60 days thereafter.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22703/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 29.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKDE, TO SURESH BHAT & OTHERS.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
13.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, TO SURESH BHAT & OTHERS.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2020 UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TO SURESH BHAT &
OTHERS.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED NIL PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE.
