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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
ALICE ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOCHI – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 31446 OF 2022 | WP(C) NO. 31627 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT), SRI.A.JOSEPH GEORGE (AZHIKKAKATH)
For the Respondents: SRI.R.HARISHANKAR, SRI.ARUN ANTONY

The court highlighted the necessity for prompt actions by authorities in processing tax representation requests.

Headnote:The petitions seek directions for revision of tax assessments for shop rooms. The petitioners argued for expedited consideration of their representations, which the respondent corporation did not oppose. The court directed the respondent to review the representations and issue a decision within six weeks, ensuring the petitioners are heard. The judgment emphasizes compliance with due process in tax assessment revisions.

Table of Content
1. the court addressed the need for a tax assessment revision. (Para 1)
2. the court acknowledged the respondent's lack of opposition. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The relief sought for by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to revise the assessment of tax of their shop rooms (Room No.111 in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31446 of 2022 & Room No.112 in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31627 of 2022) excluding the tax levied for common area including cellar. Exts.P3 and P4 are the representations preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.31627 of 2022 & W.P.(C)No.31446 of 2022 respectively, in this regard, before the 2nd respondent and the petitioners seek for an expeditious disposal of the same.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation did not object to the same.

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, the above writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent, to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 representations preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.31627 of 2022 & W.P.(C)No.31446 of 2022 respectively, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

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 Back to top