The court mandates timely decisions on exemption applications under the Kerala Building Tax Act while preventing coercive tax recovery during review.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a two storied building which was subjected to building tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and also the luxury tax under Section 5A of the said Act. After completing the assessment, the petitioner transferred the rights of the petitioner over the first floor of the building, to her son, as per Ext.P1 deed of settlement. Subsequent to such transfer, the petitioner submitted an application on 08.12.2022, before the 1^st respondent for exempting the building from the assessment of property tax, as according to the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P1 sale deed, the building became two separate units, which require separate assessment. If such an assessment is made, plinth area of each unit would fall below the taxable limit stipulated under Section

5A of the Act.

2. Acting upon the said application, Ext.P2 communication was issued by the 1^st respondent, requiring the petitioner to produce certain documents. According to the petitioner, in response to Ext.P2, Ext.P3 reply was submitted by the petitioner along with the documents available with her and also clarifying certain aspects in relation to the matters sought in Ext.P2. Thereafter, Ext.P4 communication has been issued to the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent, requiring the petitioner to furnish all the documents within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice. The said communication was dated 29.04.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that, subsequently, the documents sought for were submitted before the authorities, but a decision has not been taken yet. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass a order on the petitioner’s application dated 08.12.2022 within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing Exhibit P11 demand notice dated 11.09.2025.

iii) Direct the respondents not to proceed with any coercive steps pursuant to Exhibit P11 until the petitioner’s application is finally decided.

iv) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced along with this writ petition v) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem just and necessary in the interests of justice.”

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. In Ext.P4, the 1^st respondent required the petitioner to furnish certain documents within seven days which is apparently not complied with. This is evident from the fact that, some of the documents, which she claimed to have been submitted before the authorities are issued in the year 2024, which is beyond the period stipulated in Ext.P4. However, Exts.P5 to Ext.P10 would indicate that, the petitioner is in possession of the documents which may be relevant for considering the application submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, even thought the petitioner is found to be not responded to Ext.P4, I am of the view that, as a final decision has not been taken on the application submitted by the petitioner, it is only proper that such a decision be taken by the 1^st respondent, taking note of the documents in possession of the petitioner, in case the petitioner is submitting all the documents within a specified period.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 08.12.2022, which is referred to in Ext.P2 application and to take a decision thereon, in case, the petitioner is submitting the documents required in Ext.P4, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A decision shall be taken within a period of one month from t