2025:KER:25423 WP(C) NO. 20163 OF 2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 20163 OF 2017 PETITIONER: NAVAS AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. SHAMSUDEEN,GOLDEN PALACE, KOLLAKADAVU PO.,CHERIANADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SMT.MARIA ROY SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 2 THE TAHSILDAR CHENGANNUR, CHENGANNUR PO.,TALUK OFFICE CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688001. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, KOLLAKKADAVU PO.,MAVELIKKARA- 688001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25423 WP(C) NO. 20163 OF 2017 2 MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J. …………………………………………. W. P. (C) No.20163 OF 2017 ………………………………………………. Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and his wife are the joint owners of the property having an extent of 23 Ares 73 Sq ft in Survey Nos.271/3-2, 721/27, 721/4 and 721/26 in Chengannur village in Alappuzha District, in which ten separate two-storied buildings were constructed. After the completion of the building in August 2016, the buildings were assessed under the Kerala Building Tax Act and Rules, 1975, and were assigned separate building numbers. The assessments were completed as seen from Ext.P1, and payments made as per Ext.P2 receipts. 2. Thereafter, Ext.P3 notice was issued under Section 15(3) of the Act, alleging that the computation made with respect to the building tax was wrong requiring rectification. Ext.P3 was 2025:KER:25423 WP(C) NO. 20163 OF 2017 3 issued on 03.06.2017. On the same day, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 proceedings, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,54,700/- and also the luxury tax payable for the said buildings. 3. A counter is filed on behalf of the respondents, contending that they only attempted to rectify the mistake committed and that Ext.P4 was passed after a detailed hearing. 4. It is not in dispute that Exts.P3 and P4 bear the same date, namely, 03.06.2017. Going by Section 15 of the Act, which deals with rectification of mistakes, notice under 15(3) in the prescribed form is mandatory. The purpose of issuing a notice is obviously to give a chance to the owner to respond to the same. In the instant case, since Ext.P4 order was also passed on the same day, it is clear that no opportunity of hearing was offered to the petitioner before passing an order under Section 15 of the Act. On the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, Ext.P4 is quashed. 5. It will be open to the petitioner to file objections to 2025:KER:25423 WP(C) NO. 20163 OF 2017 4 Ext.P3, within a month from today. The 2nd respondent shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in terms of the Act and provisions within a further period of two months thereafter. The impugned orders are quashed and the writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., Anu JUDGE 2025:KER:25423 WP(C) NO. 20163 OF 2017 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20163/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 27.3.2017 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING TAX EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPYOF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 3.6.2017 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2017