Remanded

P.v.S.Authomotive Company (P) Ltd. v. Tahasildar, Kozhikode

Kerala HC1 Feb 2013WP(C)/1150/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a government order rejecting their claim for exemption from building tax on the grounds that their outlet was not a factory. The Court found the government order defective for failing to consider the definition of 'manufacturing process' and the nature of workshop activities, setting aside the order and directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 (Government Order) and Ext.P5 (Assessment Order) set aside; direction to reconsider exemption claim within three months.

P.v.S.Authomotive Company (P) Ltd. Vs Tahasildar, Kozhikode — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/12TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1150 of 2013 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.V.S.AUTHOMOTIVE COMPANY (P) LTD., K.T.C.NAGAR,PANNIYANKARA

¶8

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI.P.V.CHANDRAN.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶14

REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL)DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, REVENUE(SPECIAL CELL)DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER JOSEPH GEORGE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 1150 of 2013

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BIOLERS AND 24.01.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

¶22

EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(BUILDING TAX),KOZHIKODE DATED 13.01.2006

¶23

EXT-P3 TRUE COPY of the REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXT-P2 NOTICE

¶24

EXT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 07-11-2012

¶25

EXT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶26

/true copy/

¶27

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶28

W.P.(C).1150/2013

¶29

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner challenges Ext.P4, Government Order dated 7.11.2012 and Ext.P5, a consequential order issued under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (in short 'the Act').

¶32

Petitioner is a dealer of Ford Cars. Insofar as their sales and service outlet is concerned, they claim that the building is eligible for exemption as contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. This claim was referred to the Government as required under Section 3(2) of the Act. Accordingly, Government considered the matter and rejected their claim as per Ext.P4.

¶33

In Ext.P4, Government held thus:-

¶34

“Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 exempts from Building Tax for the buildings principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes or that are used as Factories or workshops.

¶35

Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines the term factory: means any premises including the precincts thereof.

¶36

(1). Whereon ten or more workers are

¶37

W.P.(C).1150/13

¶38

¶39

working or were working on any day of the preceding twelve month and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried out on

¶40

(2). Whereon twenty or more workers are working or were working on any day of the preceding twelve month and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on -

¶41

Hence building in question does not deserve exemption under Section 3(1) (b) of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 since the area used as vehicle service area and water service shed of vehicles as after sale service and connected business affairs cannot be considered as factory/workshop. The building in question is not principally used for the purpose envisaged under Section 3(1) (b) of the Act. No manufacturing process/productive activities is being done there.

¶42

In the circumstances, Government order that the building (PVS Automotive Company Pvt. Limited) owned by Sri.P.V.Chandran, situated in Panniyankara village in Kozhikode Taluk having a plinth area of 2126.16 M2 is not eligible for exemption from building tax under Section 3(1) (b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The Tahsildar, Kozhikode will take necessary steps to assess the building for Building Tax.”

¶43

On the issuance of Ext.P4, Tahsildar completed the assessment and issued Ext.P5. It is in these circumstance the writ petition is filed.

¶44

A reading of Ext.P4 discloses that the petitioner claimed exemption on the ground that the building in question is used principally as a Factory. It was this claim which was considered by

¶45

W.P.(C).1150/13

¶46

¶47

the Government and the Government answered the question against the petitioner relying on Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, which defines 'Factory'. However, Government have not made reference to the definition of “manufacturing process” which expression is defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act.

¶48

That apart, Section 3(1) (b) of the Act also exempts buildings which are used principally as workshops. In the affidavit dated 21.1.2013, filed before this Court, petitioner has explained the works carried out at their workshop and also given the details of the equipments and machineries that are provided therein. Therefore, having regard to the activities that are carried on and the equipments and machineries installed, if the building in question qualifies as one which is principally used as a workshop, then also the claim of the petitioner is a tenable one. This legal position has already been explained by this Court in K.V.R.Auto Cars (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 26) .

¶49

A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the claim of the petitioner was rejected without either referring to Section 2(k) of the Factories

¶50

W.P.(C).1150/13

¶51

¶52

Act or also without considering the nature of the activities that are carried on in the workshop of the petitioner. Therefore, I am satisfied that the matter requires to be reconsidered and for that reason, I set aside Ext.P4. Consequently Ext.P5 will also stand set aside.

¶53

2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, in the light of the statutory provisions indicated above and also having regard to the nature of the activities that are carried on in the establishment of the petitioner. Orders as above, shall be passed, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

mrcs

¶57

/true copy/

¶58

sd/- P.A. To Judge

P.v.S.Authomotive Company (P) Ltd. v. Tahasildar, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.S.Authomotive Company (P) Ltd. v. Tahasildar, Kozhikode

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

Kunhikannan Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Standard Chartered Bank Vs the District Magistrate,Ernakulam

K.R.Davis Vs Authorised Officer

K.J. Mathew Vs Roopkala.S. Jacob

A.Shajahan Vs Authorised Officer(Reg.Manager)Ks.Co.Op.

Kairali Tea Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India