Courts must ensure proper procedures are followed for tax assessments, allowing parties to contest before final orders.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. P.B. Sahasranaman, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Smt. Meena John, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation.

2. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Exts.P1, P3 and P4 demand notices, seeking to levy property tax under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the afore notices have been issued seeking to demand the tax at the higher rate since the construction/ building in question is stated to be an unauthorized one. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16130/2022, and by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had directed the Secretary of the Kannur Municipality to adjudicate on the notice issued to the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing to him. Hence, the petitioner contends that without issuing fresh orders as above, the demand of tax at higher rate cannot be sustained.

3. However, with reference to the statement filed by the respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation points out that subsequently, the petitioner himself has filed a regularisation application on 24.08.2022, and therefore, since the unauthorized construction is being admitted by the petitioner, there is no requirement for complying with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P5. I find much force in the afore contention raised by the learned counsel.

4. In any event, this Court notices that Exts.P1, P3 and P4 have been issued without a proper adjudication in the matter by issuing only a printed notice.

In such circumstances, the writ petition would stand disposed of as under:-

i. Exts.P1, P3 and P4 are set aside.

ii. The Secretary of the 1^st respondent is directed to issue a proper show cause notice to the petitioner calling for objections as regards the proposal for assessment within a period of three weeks from today.

iii. The petitioner would be entitled to file objections to the afore, within a further period of three weeks thereafter.

iv. The Secretary of the respondent corporation is directed to pass final reasoned assessment orders against the petitioner within a further period of four weeks thereafter.

v. The petitioner to satisfy the tax admitted by him, in the meantime.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON AP JUDGE PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit.P.1. TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 13-08-2021 Exhibit.P.2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THIS PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 01-09-2021 Exhibit.P.3. TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE NO. PKZ/E2/2223/21 DATED 15-09-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit.P.4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-04-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit.P.5. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN W.P.(C)NO.16130 OF 2022 DATED 07-06-

2022 Exhibit.P.6. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THIS PETITIONER, DATED 17-08-2022 Exhibit.P.7. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 06-03-2023 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED NIL