Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ERNAKAULAM MEDICAL CENTRE versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ERNAKAULAM MEDICAL CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 10073 of 1999(Y) [2007] RD-KL 15281 (9 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 10073 of 1999(Y)

1. ERNAKAULAM MEDICAL CENTRE
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :09/08/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.

O.P. NO. 10073 OF 1999 Y

Dated this the 9th August, 2007



JUDGMENT

SANKARAN, J.

The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, constructed a building in Sy.No.87/7A and 8A of Edappally South Village. The building was occupied on 1.2.1995. Assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act was made as per Ext.P2 assessment order dated 27.9.1996. Petitioner paid the building tax as assessed under Ext.P2, evidenced by Exts.P3 and P3(a).

2. Later, as per Ext.P4 order, dated 3.3.1999, the building tax assessed as per Ext.P2 was revised and the revised building tax of Rs.5.17.500/- was imposed as against the building tax of Rs.3,46,500/- already assessed under Ext.P2. The prayer in the Original Petition is to quash Ext.P4. There is also a prayer to declare Section 5(2) of the Building Tax Act as unconstitutional.

3. Against Ext.P4 assessment order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Act. Without resorting to the appellate remedy, the petitioner cannot straight away challenge the same in a writ petition. The petitioner is granted thirty days' time from today to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging Ext.P4 and if such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of thirty days, the same shall be disposed of on merits by the O.P. NO.10073 of 1999 Appellate Authority, taking it as having been filed within time.

4. As regards the prayer to declare Section 5(2) of the Act as unconstitutional, this Court had already held in Shirly v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 306) that Section 5(2) of the Building Tax Act as amended by Act 13 of 1993 is unconstitutional. The question of validity or otherwise of Act 13 of 1993 itself was raised in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief in that respect is not pressed. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

i) The petitioner is granted liberty to file appeal challenging Ext.P4 order of assessment before the Appellate Authority within a period of thirty days from today. ii) If such an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority within the aforesaid period of thirty days, the same shall be disposed of on merits by the Appellate Authority without reference to the period of limitation. Consequent to the judgment in the Original Petition, all pending interlocutory applications are also rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ H.L.DATTU, C.J. &

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

O.P.NO. 10073 OF 1999 Y

JUDGMENT

9th August, 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.