Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
HOTEL HARITHAGIRI – Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33007 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For the Respondents: GP JASMIN
Assessments made under the Kerala Building Tax Act must be substantiated with proper justification, and lack of detailed reasoning constitutes a procedural irregularity.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the assessment order and demand notice issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, asserting that a fresh assessment made after 9 years lacked basis (Judgment Paragraphs 1-2). The court observed total non-application of mind in the assessment process and directed reconsideration (Judgment Paragraph 4). The verdict states the respondent must give the petitioner a chance to be heard upon reassessment (Judgment Conclusion).
Act Referred
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment process and grounds for challenge. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on details and discrepancies in assessments. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observation concerning procedural fairness. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 order of assessment and the consequential demand notice issued as per Ext.P11.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is a hotel having four star classification, which is having an old building. During 2005, a new construction was made. With respect to the new construction, the building was assessed as per the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975 and pursuant to Ext.P7 order of assessment, the petitioner has paid the amount demanded therein. The contention of the petitioner is that, after a lapse of 9 years, a fresh assessment has been made as evident from Ext.P10, which is without any basis.
3. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the area mentioned in Ext.P7 is 543.66 M2, whereas the area mentioned in Ext.P10 is 3382.52 M2
4. A perusal of Ext.P10 would reveal that it is in a printed format in which none of the details have been entered and no reasons have been stated therein, which reveals total non-
application of mind on the part of the assessing officer.
In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P10 order, with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent assessing authority, to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Sd/-
