Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.M. JAMEELA IBRAHIM versus TAHASILDAR, KOLLAM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.M. JAMEELA IBRAHIM v. TAHASILDAR, KOLLAM - WA No. 388 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 9415 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 388 of 2006()

1. T.M. JAMEELA IBRAHIM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. TAHASILDAR, KOLLAM,
... Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

4. VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.

W.A.No.388 of 2006

Dated, this the 4th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu,C.J. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.30228 of 1999 dated 5.1.2006 and the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Kollam in No.A4-6582/89 dated 27.10.1999 are the subject matters of this Writ Appeal.

2. The brief facts are: The petitioner is the owner of a building used for commercial purpose. The Tahsildar, Kollam had passed an assessment order under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act ("Act" for short) on 1.9.1988. The assessed tax was paid by the assessee. The assessing authority by his order dated 27.7.1989 had passed an order of rectification and also had issued a demand notice. The assessee by accepting the fresh rectification order had paid the demand raised under the rectified order.

3. Aggrieved by the said rectification order, the assessee had carried the matter in an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The same was dismissed on 30.6.1990. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was filed before the District Collector who, by his order dated 10.6.1992, had allowed the appeal and had remanded the matter to the assessing authority to redo the matter in accordance with law. After such remand, the assessing authority/Tahsildar, Kollam has passed yet another order dated 20.7.1993.

4. Nearly after six years from the date of passing of the fresh order by the Tahsildar, yet another notice dated 27.10.1999 is issued to the W.A.No.388 of 2006 - 2 - appellant/petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was before this Court in writ petition. The one and only contention canvassed by the petitioner before this Court was that the notice so issued is beyond the time prescribed both under Section 13 and Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, request was made to cancel the notice so issued by the Tahsildar, Kollam.

5. Sri.V.V.Ashokan, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) sought to justify the impugned order.

6. Section 13 of the Act gives power to the District Collector to initiate suo motu revisional proceedings and that can be done within three months from the date of the orders sought to be revised. Section 15 of the Act authorises the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority to rectify a mistake apparent on the face of the record in an assessment order, appeal order or a revisional order and that can be done within three years from the date of the orders sought to be rectified.

7. In the instant case, we have noticed the date of the orders passed by the assessing authority and the revisional authority. Keeping in view those dates if we look at the notice issued by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, the same is barred by limitation, both under Section 13 and Section 15 of the Act. This aspect of the matter ought to have been noticed by the learned Single Judge before rejecting the writ petition. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be allowed as under: Order

(i) Writ Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Tahsildar, No.A4-6582/89 dated 27.10.1999 are quashed. W.A.No.388 of 2006 - 3 - (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their own costs. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.T.Sankaran Judge vku/-


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.