The court emphasizes mandatory adherence to procedural fairness in tax assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, including the right to a hearing for taxpayers.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a commercial building situated within the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent Tahsildar. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P7 order passed by the 1^st respondent, imposing a liability of Rs 6,40,800/- towards the tax payable under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 .

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Earlier, the building of the petitioner was subjected to assessment of building tax by the 1^st respondent, as per Ext.P1 order of assessment dated 19.09.2018. The plinth area reckoned for the purpose of tax as per Ext.P1 was 1725.56 Square Meters and the tax was fixed as Rs.5,68,800/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the said appeal was disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to remeasure the property and issue a fresh assessment order. However, the petitioner was not served with a copy of the same, and he came to know about the same as per Ext.P4, which is a notice issued by the 1^st respondent on 13.01.2022 proposing to conduct the measurement of the property on 18.01.2022.

3. As conveyed in Ext.P4, a measurement was conducted, and Ext.P5 is the details of the measurement, including the sketch prepared based on the same. As against Ext.P5, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 objection, highlighting several aspects and pointing out that a certain portion of the plinth area assessed, cannot be subjected to building tax, going by the statutory provisions in the Kerala Building Tax Act.

4. Even though several such objections were highlighted as per Ext.P6 dated 12.04.2022, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P7 order on 04.05.2022 re-fixing the total plinth area as 1938.03 Square Meters and determining the tax liability as Rs.6,40,800/-. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P7.

5. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, on 14.7.2022, an interim order was passed by this Court, directing the 1^st respondent to carry out a fresh measurement and to submit a report. It is also to be noted in this regard that, in the meantime, a portion of the building was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India, and a partial demolition was affected. Exhibit P3 is the valuation report, wherein, the details of the plinth area of the demolished portion are mentioned, which is 324.1 Sq. mtr. on the ground floor and 1st floor, and 34.88 Sqr Mtr on the 2nd floor. In compliance of the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, a further inspection was conducted, and based on the same, a statement was submitted by the 1^st respondent on 11.10.2022, by which the total plinth area of the building was found to be 2123.95 Sqr Mtr. Annexure R1(a) is the sketch and the details of such measurement.

6. A reply affidavit has been submitted by the petitioner in response to the statement of the respondent.

7. I have heard Sri. K.M. Firoz, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Reshmitha R. Chandran, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. One of the main grounds raised by the petitioner while challenging Ext.P7 is that, the said order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard and without adverting to the specific objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6. On going through Ext.P6, it can be seen that the petitioner had made detailed objections, point by point, referring to certain areas included in the assessment already made. According to the petitioner, those areas that are specifically referred to in Ext.P6, are not assessable for the building tax, as per the statutory stipulations contained in t