Proper procedure must be followed in tax assessments, including conducting inspections in the presence of affected parties.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a residential building situated in Survey No.838/1/19/70 of Ayiranelloor Village in Punalur Taluk. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the imposition of luxury tax under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act in respect of the said building, reckoning the total plinth area of the building as 285.79 Square Meters. Ext.P1 is the assessment order passed by the Tahsildar on 07.01.2014.

2. As against the same, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in which, the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for conducing fresh measurement and assessment. Ext.P2 is the said order. Apparently, the petitioner had approached the District Collector against the same highlighting certain grievances, which resulted in Ext.P3, in which the measurement was directed to be conducted along with the officers of the Public Works Department after giving the petitioner a notice and also in his presence. Based on the same, a report was prepared by the Tahsildar and the said report as well as the sketch prepared, were forwarded by the Tahsildar to the the District Collector as per Ext.P4 communication. Ext.P5 is the said report and the sketch, which have been forwarded by the Tahsildar as per Ext.P4 to the District Collector. Those documents would indicate that, the total plinth area of the building was 260.58 Square Meters, which is lesser than the ceiling limit contemplated under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act , for the purpose of imposing luxury tax. Thereafter, despite the aforesaid report, Ext.P6 demand was made imposing luxury tax upon the building of the petitioner reckoning total plinth area as

285.79 Square Meters. Ext.P7 is the demand notice based on the same. This writ petition is submitted petitioner in such circumstances challenging Exts.P6 and P7.

3. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 2nd respondent controverting the averments contained in the writ petition. It is averred in the said counter affidavit that, after the inspection conducted on 08.01.2016, and on verifying the report prepared based on such inspection, it was found that, the measurement was taken and the plinth area was calculated on the basis of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, whereas, a different criteria ought to have been adopted for measuring the plinth area for the purpose of Kerala Building Tax Act . Therefore, a further measurement was taken and in such measurement, the total plinth area was found to be 284.363 Square Meters. Exts.P6 and P7 were issued based on such inspection, it was pointed out.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that, as far as Exts.P6 and P7 are concerned, the same were issued based on an inspection conducted in the building of the petitioner without issuing any notice to him. Moreover, it is also pointed out that, in Ext.P6 it is mentioned that, the plinth area was fixed as 285.79 Square Meters based on the inspection conducted as per the order passed by the District Collector. However, according to the petitioner, such an inspection was conducted on 08.01.2016, as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5, wherein the plinth area was found to be 260.58 Square Meters.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader opposed the aforesaid contentions.

7. After carefully going through the records, I find merits in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is particularly because, Ext.P3 issued by the District Collector contains a specific direction to the Tahsildar to conduct a joint inspection with officers of PWD in the presence of the petitioner. The inspection so conducted culminated in Ext.P5 report, wherein, the total