Quashed

G. Rajeevan v. Thahsildar, Karunagapally

Kerala HC11 Nov 2013WP(C)/8457/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an order under the Kerala Building Tax Act, the Court quashed an order assessing a building as having a new workshop area. The Court remitted the matter for de novo consideration by the State Government to correctly determine if the building is used principally as a workshop, noting discrepancies in the order and the petitioner's factory license.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order quashed; matter remitted to the Fourth Respondent for de novo consideration within two months.

G. Rajeevan Vs Thahsildar, Karunagapally — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/20TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 8457 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

G. RAJEEVAN, S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT SREEMURAKALAYAM PULLIYOOR VANCHI NORTH, THAZHAVA.P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690518.

¶11

VILLAGE OFFICER, AADINAD VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY-690518.

¶12

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691001.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JUSTIN JACOB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 8457 of 2013 (F)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 3.12.2012,ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 27.4.2006. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2007 IN WP(C)30486/07 EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2007

¶21

EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF IST INSTALLMENT

¶22

EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2009

¶23

EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.7.2012.

¶24

EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P9 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.12.2012,ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶27

/TRUE COPY/

¶28

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶29

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶30

WP(C) NO. 8457 OF 2013

¶31

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2013

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

There has been a perfunctory consideration of the question as to whether the building is used principally as a workshop as contended by the petitioner. The building contains three floors one above the other and the total plinth area is 969 square metres (323 x 3). Ext.P1 licence granted to the petitioner under the Factories Act, 1948 is for the whole of the building and Ext.P2 order of assessment passed earlier shows the total plinth area as 969 square metres.

¶34

Ext.P7 order passed by the government under Section 3 (2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 however makes mention of one floor only. There is no reference at all to the first and second floor of the building which is allegedly used as a workshop by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that no workshop area has been newly built whereas Ext.P7 order refers to 'a new work shop area' of extent 202.92 square metres.

¶35

The question is whether the building is used principally as a workshop meaning thereby that major portion

¶36

¶37

WP(C) No. 8457/2013

¶38

of the plinth area should be utilised for such activity. Spare parts store as well as the washing area have to be reckoned as workshop whereas showroom area is to be treated differently. If the area occupied by the showroom is small when compared to the area utilised by other activities, the building has to be treated as a workshop.

¶39

The matter needs a reconsideration at the hands of the government for which I quash Ext.P7 order and remit the matter for a denovo consideration. The fourth respondent shall pass a considered order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequential orders shall be passed by the first respondent dependent on the outcome of the exercise by the fourth respondent as directed above. Needless to say that the petitioner would be afforded an opportunity of being heard before orders are passed.

¶40

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶41

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶42

ncd

G. Rajeevan v. Thahsildar, Karunagapally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Rajeevan v. Thahsildar, Karunagapally

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

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs R.K.Santhosh Kumar

M. Malathi Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)

V.P.Chandra Bose Vs Executive Engineer

Lince Thomas Vs the Commercial Tax Inspector

Kelan Vs the South Malabar Gramin Bank

Deepa Vs the State Bank of Travancore