“Once Tax Has Been Assessed, Entire Amount Has To Be Paid, Unless There Are Amnesty Schemes”: Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ Against Finalised Building Tax Demand
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a writ petition challenging the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to a finalised assessment order under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The Court held that once an assessment order is passed, the authority becomes functus officio and no partial satisfaction of tax liability can be accepted outside statutory provisions. Observing that the petitioner had acquiesced to the assessment by making part-payment, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the challenge was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dismissal was made without prejudice to any statutory remedies available to the petitioner under the Act.
The petitioner, a 65-year-old individual, constructed a building on land situated in Resurvey Nos. 199/25 and 199/26 of Block No. 18 of Sulthan Bathery in Wayanad District. The building was constructed in accordance with a building permit (Exhibit P1) issued by the local municipal authority on 19.09.2019. Upon completion of the construction, the premises were assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, and a demand of ₹12,42,800 was raised by the competent authority.
The petitioner did not initially contest the assessment. Instead, he made payment towards the first instalment of the assessed amount. Subsequently, on 27.02.2025, he submitted a representation (Exhibit P2) to the Tahsildar, requesting that the proceedings be cancelled and a reduced amount be accepted in satisfaction of the entire tax demand. In response, the Tahsildar issued a communication dated 06.03.2025 (Exhibit P3) stating that the assessment order was finalised on 27.01.2023 and, in view of non-payment of the full amount, revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the communication and for a direction to reassess the building tax based on the plinth area as per the original sanctioned plan. He prayed for an order directing the authorities to accept a portion of the tax liability in full settlement.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was willing to settle the dues but that the tax had been arbitrarily fixed without properly considering the approved plan. It was contended that the authority had failed to consider the petitioner’s representation and that the insistence on recovering the full assessed amount was inequitable.
On behalf of the State, the learned Government Pleader opposed the petition, submitting that the assessment was made in accordance with the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, and that the petitioner had not availed any of the remedies available under the Act. It was further submitted that once an assessment is made, the assessing authority becomes functus officio and lacks the jurisdiction to modify or cancel the assessment without statutory basis. The State asserted that the attempt to substitute judicial review in place of the prescribed appellate and revisional channels was legally impermissible.
The petitioner did not challenge the assessment order by way of appeal or revision under the provisions of the Act, nor did he raise any statutory grounds before the competent authorities. Instead, he sought to reopen the matter through a writ petition based on a subsequent representation.
The Court recorded that the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 governs the procedure for assessment and provides a statutory framework for grievance redressal. It stated: “Once an order of assessment is passed, the assessing authority becomes practically functus officio for the purpose of building tax.”
Referring to the procedural requirements under the Act, the Court noted: “The remedy of a person aggrieved by an order of assessment is to prefer statutory appeal and revision as provided under the Act.” It further stated: “In the absence of any statutory remedy invoked by the petitioner, the assessment order became final.”
Addressing the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court recorded: “Therefore, recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper.”
On the conduct of the petitioner in making part-payment and then seeking partial settlement, the Court noted: “Petitioner had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed.” The Court found this approach untenable in law, stating: “Such a procedure is unheard in law.”
With respect to modification of tax liability post-assessment, the Court observed: “Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.”
In conclusion, the Court recorded: “I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed without prejudice to the remedies, if any available under the Act.”
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by holding that no relief could be granted in the absence of statutory remedies being invoked under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The Court recorded that the petitioner had not pursued appeal or revision as contemplated under the Act and instead sought judicial interference after the assessment had attained finality.
It recorded: “Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed without prejudice to the remedies, if any available under the Act.”
The Court did not entertain the petitioner’s request to accept a reduced amount in satisfaction of the tax demand, nor did it quash the communication issued by the revenue authorities. The prayer for reassessment based on a sanctioned plinth area plan was also not considered. The Court held that such claims could not be entertained under Article 226 once the statutory process had concluded.
No direction was issued to halt or modify the revenue recovery proceedings. The Court left it open to the petitioner to approach the competent forum in accordance with law, while clearly declining to examine the merits of the assessment or procedural regularity of Exhibit P3.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Nirmal V. Nair, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Jasmin M.M., Government Pleader; Sri Jayakumar Namboodiri T.V., Standing Counsel
Case Title: C.Y. Cherian v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:29523
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 13425 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
[Read/Download order]
