Remanded

A.M.Divakaran v. District Collector

Kerala HC10 Oct 2013WP(C)/10159/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed orders regarding rectification of building tax liability. It directed the Revenue to treat independent hotel structures as one building, remitting the matter for fresh assessment based on the Schedule under Section 5 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Exts. P5, P7 and P9 orders and remitted the matter to the Third Respondent for a denovo consideration.

A.M.Divakaran Vs District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 10159 of 2011 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. A.M.DIVAKARAN, MUKUND NIVAS WEST PONNIAM P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. A.M.RAVEENDRAN, MUKUND NIVAS, WEST PONNIAM P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN CODE - 670 001

¶12

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE - 670 624

¶13

3. THASILDAR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE- 670 624

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. SHAIJ RAJ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DCS

¶17

WP(C).No. 10159 of 2011 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT. P1:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT. P2:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 15930/2003 DATED 20.05.2003
EXT. P3:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2007 IN W.A. NO. 1089/2003
EXT. P4:	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 14.07.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT. P5:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT. P6:	COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.01.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT. P7:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT. P8:	COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 28.02.2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT. P9:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶26

-------------------------------

¶27

W.P.(C) No.10159 of 2011

¶28

------------------------------------- Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The Pearl View Regency is a three star hotel at Thalassery in the State of Kerala. The hotel comprises of the following structures:-

¶31

i) Single Cottage

¶32

ii) Lodge iii) Double Cottage iv) Restaurant

¶33

The entire property belongs to two brothers who are the petitioners.

¶34

Assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the 'Act' for short) was initially made on 08.12.2000. The four structures aforementioned were treated as four separate buildings. This is primarily because the construction was on the basis of separate building permits. The fact that there is functional integrity in the use of the buildings was not given importance.

¶35

Subsequently proceedings for rectification of mistake under Section 15 of the Act were initiated. The reason

¶36

W.P.(C) No.10159 of 2011 2

¶37

for such exercise is that there is a deficit in the plinth area to the extent of 143.40 square meters. The orders passed after rectification fasten an additional liability of Rs. 1,00,800/- on the petitioners. It is not discernible as to how the amount was so arrived at on the basis of the Schedule under Section 5 of the Act.

¶38

True it is that Ext. P1 notice issued for rectification of mistake is incomplete. It cannot also be disputed that Exts. P5, P7 and P9 orders passed in appeal and revision are also unsatisfactory. The computation of the plinth area and the liability to pay tax have to be determined afresh. I therefore quash Exts. P5, P7 and P9 orders.

¶39

I remit the matter to the third respondent for a denovo consideration. The third respondent shall issue an additional notice to the petitioner specifying the mistakes. All the structures can be treated as part of one and the same building. This is because all the structures are interdependent and form part of a three star hotel only. The fact that the buildings are constructed on the basis of separate permits does not distract from the above proposition.

¶40

The plinth area of all the four structures shall be totaled on the basis of the approved plan. The amount due

¶41

W.P.(C) No.10159 of 2011 3

¶42

shall be determined on the basis of the Schedule under Section 5 of the Act. The liability shall be fastened on both the petitioners who are the owners. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amounts already paid by the petitioners as tax under the Act shall be given credit to.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶44

sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶45

DCS

A.M.Divakaran v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Divakaran v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Manger, S.B.T., Palakkad Barnch Vs M/S.Walayar Motels Pvt. Ltd., Kanjikode

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Lakshmi U. Vs State of Kerala

Managing Director Vs T.J.Thomas

Eldho Vs P.I. Shaik Pareed

Sunny P.Kunnath Vs P.I.Shaik Pareed