Proper procedural safeguards must be followed in tax assessments, ensuring notice to affected parties.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the authorities as per the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 , whereby luxury tax was imposed on the petitioner.

2. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the assessment was made based on an inspection conducted, which was done without notice to the petitioner and that if a proper inspection had been conducted with notice to the petitioner, she could have pointed out the relevant aspects for consideration, which would have revealed that the plinth area of the building is less than the area fixed for assessing the building for luxury tax. Petitioner contends that though such a specific contention has been raised in the writ petition, same is not seen answered in the counter affidavit.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also, who would submit that even in the appellate proceedings, as per the request of the petitioner, a further inspection was conducted and it is based on the same that the appellate order was issued. Whether the said inspection was with notice to the petitioner is not revealed either in the counter affidavit or in the impugned order.

In the light of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

Ext.P7 is set aside with a further direction to the 1^st respondent District Collector to conduct an inspection through an authorised officer, with notice to the petitioner and take a fresh decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order passed by this Court will continue.

Sd/-