High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-02-29Dismissed

M/s. Malabar Builders India Pvt Ltd (formerly Malaber Builders India Ltd.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector), Kozhikode and The Tahsildar, Kozhikode Taluk

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 38059 of 2015 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Judgment Date: 2016-02-29
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The proviso to Section 11(1) interpreted as payment of the amount due on the date of filing the appeal (1st instalment). The appellate authority should consider merit after payment; final orders to be passed within two months of compliance; petitioner to pay the 1st instalment within three weeks; balance recovery to be kept in abeyance pending orders.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S. Malabar Builders India Pvt Ltd., formerly Malabers Builders India Ltd., Malabar Gate, Ram Mohan Road, Puthiyara Post, Kozhikode-673 004, represented by its Director, Nazeer Hussain, S/O.T.P.Hussain, residing at ''AISWARYA'', Civil Station P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 020

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector), Civil Station, Kozhikode-673 020
The Tahsildar, Kozhikode Taluk, Civil Station-673 020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.N.Subramaniam
• Sri.M.S.Narayanan
• Sri.P.T.Girijan
• Smt.Usha Narayanan
• Smt.Neenu Pavithran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.R.Ranjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Malabar Builders India Pvt Ltd, challenges Ext.P11, a notice issued by the first respondent requiring payment of the first instalment of building tax as a precondition for entertaining Ext.P9 appeal against Ext.P7 assessment order under the Kerala Building Tax Act. Ext.P1 fixed a tax of Rs. 17,42,100, to be paid in four equal quarterly instalments beginning 25.09.2015, with the appeal before the appellate authority proceedings to be initiated by 25.09.2015. The petitioner contends that liability to pay the instalments arises only from the due dates listed in the demand notices, and that Ext.P11 imposes an enforceable condition to file the appeal, which cannot override the statutory right of appeal. He relies on Section 11 of the Kerala Building Tax Act (with the proviso that no appeal lies unless the building tax has been paid) and on Rule 10 of the Kerala Building Tax Rules and Rule 14 of the Plinth Area Rules, arguing that the payment should be in line with the date of filing the appeal. He cites Francis v. Revenue Divisional Officer (1989 (1) KLT 550) and Supreme Court precedents like Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat and Vijay Prakash & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs to support a reading that while the right to appeal is statutory, it can be conditioned. The Government Pleader counters that Ext.P11 merely requests the first instalment to entertain the appeal. The High Court, after considering the statutory framework and cited authorities, holds that the proviso to Section 11(1) is a valid conditioning device interpreted as payment of the amount due on the date of filing the appeal, not the entire tax. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The court directs the petitioner to remit the first instalment within three weeks; the appellate authority is to decide the appeal within two months from compliance, and recovery of the balance amounts is stayed pending orders, subject to merit–based considerations on documents produced.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 – Section 11(1) (Proviso)Kerala Building Tax Rules – Rule 10Kerala Building Tax (Plinth Area) Rules – Rule 14Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 – Sections 9 and 10Kerala Building Tax Rules – Rule 8Kerala Building Tax Rules – Rule 9Forms No. V and VI

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The right of appeal is the creature of a statute.
No appeal shall lie unless the building tax has been paid.
Right to appeal is not an absolute right.
Discretion vested in the appellate Judge to dispense with the compliance of the requirement.
The object of the proviso is to regulate the exercise of the right of appeal; the right to appeal can be conditioned to ensure enforcement of the tax collection."] ,
parties":{"respondents":["Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector), Civil Station, Kozhikode-673 020","The Tahsildar, Kozhikode Taluk, Civil Station-673 020"],"applicants":["M/S. Malabar Builders India Pvt Ltd., formerly Malabser Builders India Ltd., Malabar Gate, Ram Mohan Road, Puthiyara Post, Kozhikode-673 004, represented by its Director, Nazeer Hussain, S/O.T.P.Hussain, residing at 'Aiswarya', Civil Station P.O., Kozhikode-673 020"]},
lawyers":{"applicants":["Sri.N.Subramaniam","Sri.M.S.Narayanan","Sri.P.T.Girijan","Smt.Usha Narayanan","Smt.Neenu Pavithran"],"respondents":["Sri.R.Ranjith" ]},
arguments":{"applicants":"The petitioner contends that Ext.P11 imposes payment of the 1st instalment as a precondition for entertaining Ext.P9 appeal; asserts that the liability to pay the instalments arises from the date of the assessment order and that the appeal filed on 23-09-2015 should not be conditioned on paying more than the first instalment. He relies on Section 11 read with Rule 10 and Rule 14, as well as Francis v. RDO (1989 (1) KLT 550) and Supreme Court authorities (Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat and Vijay Prakash & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs) to justify that the right to appeal is statutory and subject to reasonable conditions. The petitioner also seeks stay of further instalments pending merit.","respondents":"The respondents submit that Ext.P11 merely directs payment of the 1st instalment as a condition for entertaining the appeal and that such conditioning is lawful under the statutory framework. They rely on the essential statutory provisions governing the right to file an appeal, its prerequisites, and the administrative mechanism for tax collection and recovery."},
court_decision":"Writ petition disposed of by dismissing the petition. The court upheld Ext.P11 as a valid precondition for maintaining the appeal and held that the proviso to Section 11(1) should be read as requiring payment of the amount due on the date of filing the appeal (i.e., the 1st instalment). The appellate authority is to consider the documents produced by the petitioner on merit after payment of the 1st instalment and must pass final orders within two months from compliance. The petitioner is directed to pay the 1st instalment within three weeks, and recovery of the balance amounts shall be kept in abeyance pending those orders." ,
bench_type":"Single Judge"
case_disposition":"Dismissed",
neutral_citation
cited_cases":[{
cited_case_name":"Francis v. Revenue Divisional Officer","citation_number":"1989 (1) KLT 550","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Used to interpret the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act and to support the view that payment due on the date of filing the appeal is the operative requirement; supports the permissibility of conditioning the right to appeal."},{"citated_case_name":"Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat","citation_number":"AIR 1975 SC 1234","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Cited to reinforce that the right of appeal is statutory and can be conditioned; discusses balancing the right of appeal with timely tax collection."},{"citated_case_name":"Vijay Prakash & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs","citation_number":"AIR 1988 SC 2010; 1988 (4) SCC 402","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Supports principle that right to appeal is not absolute and may be conditioned by statute; cited in context of balancing enforcement with the right to appeal."}] }{json} // The final output must be valid JSON, not this trailing note. } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }`

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P11 imposes payment of the 1st instalment as a precondition for entertaining Ext.P9 appeal; argues that since the tax assessed (Rs.17,42,100) is to be paid in four instalments, liability would commence from 25.09.2015; the appeal filed on 23-09-2015 should not require immediate payment of future instalments; relies on Section 11 read with Rule 10 and Rule 14, and on Francis v. Revenue Divisional Officer (1989 (1) KLT 550), Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat and Vijay Prakash & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs to contend that the right of appeal is statutory and may be conditioned. The petitioner seeks that instalments be kept in abeyance pending merit and that the appellate authority be empowered to pass interim orders on payment of the instalment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit Ext.P11 simply requires payment of the 1st instalment as a condition for entertaining the appeal; no illegality is involved; the right to appeal is subject to statutory conditions; relies on the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act and the Rules to support a conditioned right to appeal.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Francis v. Revenue Divisional Officer	1989 (1) KLT 550	Positive	Cited to interpret the proviso to Section 11(1) and the entitlement to appeal conditioned on payment; supports reading that payment on the date of filing is sufficient.
Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat	AIR 1975 SC 1234	Positive	Used to affirm that a right of appeal is statutory and can be conditioned for efficiency and enforcement.
Vijay Prakash & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs	AIR 1988 SC 2010; 1988 (4) SCC 402	Positive	Cited to reinforce that the right to appeal is not absolute and may be conditioned by statute.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/s. Malabar Builders India Pvt Ltd (formerly Malaber Builders India Ltd.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector), Kozhikode and The Tahsildar, Kozhikode Taluk and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 38059 of 2015 (F)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **-----------------------** **M/S. MALABAR BUILDERS INDIA PVT LTD., FORMERLY MALABER BUILDERS INDIA LTD., MALABAR GATE, RAM MOHAN ROAD, PUTHIYARA POST, KOZHIKODE-673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NAZEER HUSSAIN, S/O.T.P.HUSSAIN, RESIDING AT ''AISWARYA'', CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKKODE-673 020.** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SMT.USHA NARAYANAN SMT.NEENU PAVITHRAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR), CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.** ## **2. THE TAHSILDAR,** **KOZHIKODE TALUK, CIVIL STATION-673 020.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 38059 of 2015 (F)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** - **P1 : TRUE COPY OF ONE AGREEMENT DT 1-11-2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND PROPOSED PURCHASER.** - **P2 : TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE SALE DEEDS DT 12-4-2012 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER FAVOURING ONE PURCHASER.** - **P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DT 28-2-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DT 17-3-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTEES/PURCHASERS.** - **P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF THE NOTICES DATED NIL ISSUED TO ONE OF THE ALLOTTEES/PURCHASERS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 10-8-2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT 10-8-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT 23-9-2015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DT 23-9-2015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 17-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **sts** **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **CR** ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.** **............................................................. W.P.(C).No.38059 Of 2015 ............................................................. Dated this the 29[th] day of February, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 notice that has been issued by the 1[st] respondent informing the petitioner that, as a precondition for maintaining Ext.P9 appeal preferred by the petitioner, against Ext.P7 order of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, the petitioner would be required to pay the 1[st] instalment of the tax amount that was assessed on the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order. The challenge in the writ petition is against this condition that has been imposed by the 1[st] respondent as a precondition for considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner before him. It is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, inasmuch as in Exts.P7 assessment order and P8 demand notice, the petitioner has been assessed to building tax in an amount of Rs.17,42,100/-, and the said amount is directed to be paid in four equal quarterly instalments of Rs.4,35,525/- falling -2- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 due on 25.09.2015, 25.12.2015, 25.03.2016 and 25.06.2016 respectively, his liability to pay tax would commence only from 25.09.2015, and therefore, an appeal preferred by him before the 1[st] respondent on or before 25.09.2015 would not be required to be accompanied by any instalment of the tax confirmed against the petitioner. The learned counsel would rely on the provisions of Section 11 of the Kerala Building Tax Act read with Rule 10 of the Kerala Building Tax Rules and Rule 14 of the Kerala Building Tax (Plinth Area) Rules. He would also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in **Francis v. Revenue Divisional Officer [1989 (1) KLT 550]** wherein at paragraph 8 it is found as follows: “8. We shall first take up the appellant’s plea that the proviso to S.11 (1) of the Act is ultra vires and illegal. It was contended that no appeal shall lie unless the building tax assessed has been paid. There is no force in this plea. A reading of S.9, 10, 11 (1) taken along with R.8 and 9 along with Forms No. V and VI of the Kerala Building Tax Act and Rules, will show that the appellant is required to pay the building tax assessed only in four quarterly instalments, as mentioned in the schedule. On the day when the appellant filed the appeal (Ext.P2) before the first respondent on 23-91988, the first instalment had fallen due. A fair and reasonable construction of S.10, 11 (1) and R.8, 9 and 10 along with Forms No. V and VI, will go to show that what is contemplated by the proviso to S.11 (1) of the Act is only the payment of building tax due as on the date of -3- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 filing of the appeal. The moment, an appeal is filed, the appellate authority is seized of, the entire matter. He has got all the powers of the assessing authority. The appellate authority has got even the power to enhance the assessment. The authority competent to hear the appeal has got the jurisdiction and power to pass appropriate interim orders, on motion by the assessee, regarding the payment of tax assessed and due. So, it is open to the assessee, who has filed the appeal, to move the appellate authority for directions to keep in abeyance the further instalments due or for passing other appropriate orders which will meet the ends of justice, as by postponing the date of payment of future instalments. The appeal should be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand. Ordinarily, not more than one quarterly instalment of tax will be due or payable on the date of filing the appeal. The assessee can, after the payment of such instalment which has become due, move the appellate authority along with the appeal or even later, for keeping in abeyance the payment of subsequent instalments or for extension of the dates for paying the instalments due. In this view of the matter, we read the proviso to S.11 (1) of the Act, in the following manner: “Provided that no such appeal shall lie unless the building tax has been paid” shall only mean “Provided that no such appeal shall lie unless the building tax due then has been paid”. The building tax due on the date of filing of the appeal will ordinarily be the first quarterly instalment. In this case, it was so. The appellant’s plea that the assessee is required to remit or pay the entire building tax assessed is not justified. In this connection, we should state that the right of appeal is the creature of a statute. If, any person aggrieved by an order of assessment, wants to avail the statutory right of -4- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 appeal, he should conform to the provisions of the statute in that behalf. We are of the view, that the provision for payment of the amount due, as per the assessment order, before filing the appeal, is not open to any attack. We should remember that the Court permits a greater latitude to the discretion of the legislature, in the matter of taxation laws. The State is allowed to pick and choose districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if it does so reasonably. As to how the assessed tax should be collected is largely a question of policy. The Court would be slow to interfere with the legislative discretion in the matter. The above position in law is settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. Dealing with the requirement about the deposit of the amount, as a condition precedent to the entertainment of an appeal, the Supreme Court of India in Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1975 SC 1234) at p. 1249- para 40- stated the law thus: “.... The requirement about the deposit of the amount claimed as a condition precedent to the entertainment of an appeal which seeks to challenge the imposition or the quantum of that tax, in our opinion, has not the effect of nullifying the right of appeal, especially when we keep in view the fact that discretion is vested in the appellate Judge to dispense with the compliance of the above requirement. AH that the statutory provision seeks to do is to regulate the exercise of the right of appeal. The object of the above provision is to keep in balance the right of appeal, which is conferred upon a person who is aggrieved with the demand of tax made from him, and the right of the Corporation to speedy recovery of the tax. The impugned provision accordingly confers a right of appeal and at the same time prevents the delay in the payment of the tax. We find ourselves unable to accede to the argument -5- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 that the impugned provision has the effect of creating a discrimination as is offensive to the principle of equality enshrined in Art.14 of the Constitution. ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... .. . The right of appeal is the creature of a statute. Without a statutory provision creating such a right the person aggrieved is not entitled to file an appeal. We fail to understand as to why the legislature while granting the right of appeal cannot impose conditions for the exercise of such right. In the absence of any special reasons there appears to be no legal or constitutional impediment to the imposition of such conditions. It is permissible, for example, to prescribe a condition in criminal cases that unless a convicted person is released on bail, he must surrender to custody before his appeal against the sentence of imprisonment would be entertained. Likewise, it is permissible to enact a law that no appeal shall lie against an order relating to an assessment of tax unless the tax bad been paid....... ...... ... .... .... Such conditions merely regulate the exercise of the right of appeal so that the same is not abused by a recalcitrant party and there is no difficulty in the enforcement of the order appealed against in case the appeal is ultimately dismissed. It is open to the legislature to impose an accompanying liability upon a party upon whom a legal right is conferred or to prescribe conditions for the exercise of the right. Any requirement for the discharge of that liability or the fulfilment of that condition in case the party concerned seeks to avail of the said right is a valid piece of legislation. ... ... ... ...” -6- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 More recently, in Vijay Prakaah & Jawahar v. Collector of Customs (AIR 1988 SC. 2010 : 1988 (4) SCC 402), the Supreme Court stated in Para.9 and 13 as follows: “9. Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. “13. .. .. .. .. If the Statute gives a right to appeal as such upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfilment of these conditions that the right becomes vested and exercisable to the appellant. ....” 2. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would submit that there is no illegality in Ext.P11 notice issued by the 1[st] respondent inasmuch as the 1[st] respondent has only directed the petitioner to pay the 1[st] instalment of tax as a condition for maintaining the appeal before him. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, the statutory prescription with regard to the maintaining of an appeal -7- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 before the appellate authority is found in Section 11 of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. As per the proviso to Section 11(1), no appeal shall lie unless the building tax has been paid. Rule 10 of the Kerala Building Tax Rules mandates that the appeal against the orders of assessment shall be in Form- 7 and that the said appeal shall be accompanied by the original or certified copy of the order appealed against and the original or certified copy of the receipt obtained for payment of the entire amounts assessed. Rule 14 of the Kerala Building Tax (Plinth Area) Rules indicates that every appeal against the order of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act shall be in Form-10, and that every appeal shall be accompanied by the original or the certified copy of the order appealed against, and the original or certified copy of the receipt obtained for the payment of the 1[st] instalment of the building tax. The provisions of the Kerala Building Tax (Plinth Area) Rules have to be read in the back drop of the amendment to the Building Tax Rules whereby the basis of assessment to building tax was switched over from the capital value of the building to the plinth area of the building. Accordingly, the provisions now in force are the Kerala Building Tax (Plinth Area ) Rules and the issue that is to be considered is whether the payment that is to be made, and the certified copy of the receipt that is to be produced by the -8- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 petitioner along with appeal, is in regard to the payment of the 1[st] instalment of building tax. I note in this connection that the the stand of the petitioner is that he had filed the appeal before the date stipulated in the demand notice served on the petitioner for payment of the 1[st] instalment of the tax amount. The question therefore is whether it could be said that the petitioner had become liable to pay the 1[st] instalment amount before the date mentioned in the demand notice for payment of the 1[st] instalment of the tax amount. While the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that till the date specified in the demand notice for the payment of the 1[st] instalment, it could not be stated that the 1[st] instalment of the tax had become due, I am of the view that the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would tantamount to doing violence to the express provisions of the statutory provisions and object thereof. In my view, when there is a tax amount assessed on the petitioner, as evident from the assessment order passed, and the demand notice issued pursuant thereto permits the payment of the amounts in instalments, there is only a facility granted to the petitioner to pay the tax amount in instalments on the various dates as mentioned in the demand notice. In otherwords, while the tax amount assessed on the petitioner becomes due from the petitioner, from -9- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 the date of communication of the order of assessment, the petitioner is given only a facility of payment of the due amounts in instalments, the statutory provision making it clear that if the instalment amounts are not paid on the respective due dates, the petitioner would also have to pay interest at a specified date on those amounts which fall due on the specified due dates. In the context of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, therefore, the amount due from the petitioner on the date of filing the appeal would be the first instalment amount, which the petitioner is required to pay on or before the date mentioned for payment of the same in the demand notice. In other words, the instalment due dates mentioned in the demand notice have to be construed as the last date by which the respective instalment amounts have to be paid without incurring a further liability for interest on the said amounts. The instalment due dates cannot be construed as the dates from which the liability of the petitioner to pay the amounts arises. Accordingly, the 1[st] instalment amount would be due from the petitioner from the date of the communication of the order of assessment till the date , mentioned in the demand notice, for payment of the said instalment. Thereafter, the dues of the petitioner would be computed in accordance with the dates fixed for the subsequent instalments, he petitioner becoming liable to -10- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 pay the dues fixed for the 2[nd] instalment, 3[rd] instalment and 4[th] instalment respectively, between the due date fixed for the immediately prior instalment and the date fixed for the particular instalment. Accordingly, I am of the view that, although, the petitioner had filed his appeal before the appellate authority before the last date stipulated for payment of the 1[st] instalment of the tax assessed on him, the appeal would have to be necessarily accompanied by proof of remittance of the 1[st] instalment, which in my view had already fallen due from date of the assessment order. I, accordingly, find no reason to interfere with Ext.P11 notice issued to the petitioner, and the writ petition in its challenge against the said notice therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed. Taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner that he has produced necessary documents, for establishing his contention that the building has to be assessed not as a single unit but as comprising of individual apartments, I make it clear that on the petitioner making payment of the 1[st] instalment of tax assessed on him, the 1[st] respondent appellate authority shall consider the documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate his contentions on merit, and deal with the said documents while -11- W.P.(C). No. 38059 of 2015 passing final orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The 1[st] respondent shall pass final orders in the appeal, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of compliance by the petitioner of the formalities required for maintaining the appeal. The petitioner shall pay the 1[st] instalment of tax assessed on him within three weeks from today and, on the petitioner making the said payment, the recovery steps for recovery of the balance amounts of tax confirmed on the petitioner by the assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1[st] respondent as directed, and communicated to the petitioner. **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** mns/29.02.16