- (1.)The matter in issue in this writ petition does not really admit of any doubt, but the authorities concerned do not appear to be quite familiar with the true legal position so that I have felt it necessary to clarify the matter to avoid parties being unnecessarily driven to this court for redress.
(2.)The petitioner is the owner of a building, the construction of which was completed on 13-1-1989. The return under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was filed on 5-11-1990, the return being filed under S.7 thereof. The matter was heard by the assessing authority and eventually he passed an order Ext. P1 on 18-1-1992 under S.9, fixing the capital value of the building at Rs.7,53,300/- and determining the tax payable at Rs.49,000/-. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the assessment and he challenged it in appeal, though unsuccessfully, before the Revenue Divisional Officer at Palakkad under S.11 of the Act. Thereafter he filed a revision petition before the District Collector under S.13, challenging the two adverse orders. That was in the first week of January 1993.
(3.)S.13 as it originally stood, provided an unconditional revision, that is, a revision which was not hedged in by any condition of payment of the whole or any portion of the tax assessed for its maintainability. But S.13 was amended by the Kerala Building Tax (Amendment) Act 3 of 1992 with effect from 10-2-1992, by adding sub clause (4) thereto, stipulating that no application for revision shall lie unless fifty percent of the building tax due was paid. The petitioner's revision petition before the District Collector was filed after this amendment to S.13 came into force. The District Collector refused to take the revision petition on file, and he informed the petitioner by his proceedings Ext. P4 that since the petitioner had not remitted 50% of the building tax assessed, the revision petition could not be taken on file. It is this proceeding Ext. P4 dated 29-1-1993 that is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner's submission is that since the proceedings under the Act which resulted in the revision petition, had been initiated prior to the amendment to S.13, he was not bound by the condition imposed by the newly introduced sub-s.(4) and that the revision petition was maintainable without the deposit contemplated by the sub-section. She submits that she had a right to move in revision before the District Collector uninhibited by the condition imposed by the amendment. She submits that the right to the statutory remedies available under the Act vested in her as soon as the return was filed on 5-11-1990 and this vested right cannot be divested except by specific provision, or by necessary intendment in the subsequent amendment. No such provision exists in the amendment Act. The District Collector was therefore not justified in refusing to entertain the revision petition for nonpayment of 50% of the tax assessed as under the amended S.13.
;