Partly allowed

Manuel Hatchery and Breeding Farm v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jan 2012WA/136/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Appeal challenging disallowance of building tax exemption on a hatchery was dismissed. The Court held a hatchery is not a factory or workshop under the Act, following earlier precedent.

What did the court decide?

Appellants exonerated from interest on arrears if payment is made on or before 30th March, 2012; settlement of liability without interest otherwise.

Manuel Hatchery and Breeding Farm Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/10TH MAGHA 1933

¶7

WA.No. 136 of 2012 () IN WPC/32028/2011

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN WPC.32028/2011 DATED 09-12-2011 APPELLANT(S):

¶9

MANUEL HATCHERY AND BREEDING FARM KAKKAKKANKALAM, KOZHIPARA.P.O. PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS SMT. GIJI MANUEL.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

PIN - 695001.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR

¶15

CHILOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

PIN - 678101.

¶17

VILLAGE OFFICER

¶18

VADAKARAPATHY VILLGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶19

PIN - 678557.

¶20

R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶23

¶24

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶25

W.A. No. 136 OF 2012

¶26

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Ramachandran Nair, J

¶29

This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge disallowing building tax exemption on a hatchery building.

¶30

Heard the counsel for the appellant and also the senior Government Pleader for respondents.

¶31

First of all, hatchery as such does not answer the description of 'factory' or 'workshop' which comes within the meaning of S.3(1) of the Building Tax Act and so much so exemption is rightly declined.

¶32

The learned Single Judge rejected the claim following the judgment of this court in Muhammed Haneefa v. District Collector (2009 (1) KLT 719) .

¶33

W.A. No. 136 OF 2012

¶34

:2 :

¶35

Even though this court suggested to the Government to consider amendment of the statute, so far Government has not expanded the scope of exemption to cover the appellant's building. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶36

However, we feel the appellant can be exonerated from payment of interest provided the arrears of building tax is paid on or before 30^th March, 2012.

¶37

Respondents are directed to allow settlement of liability without interest, if payment is made within the time granted above and on failure, to recover the arrears with interest.

¶38

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶39

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶40

ul/-

Manuel Hatchery and Breeding Farm v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manuel Hatchery and Breeding Farm v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cheruvannur Greemeena Kaliman Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. Vs C.Amarnath

T.R.Hemalatha Vs the State of Kerala

The Commercial Tax Officer Vs Kaveri Viswanathan

Managing Committee of the Olavanna Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd.No.D 2770 Vs the Joint Registrar

M.C.Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Sulthan Gold International Vs State of Kerala