The High Court of Kerala reviewed an order regarding building tax exemption for firewood storage. It held that a kitchen storing firewood does not qualify as firewood storage area. Finding no error, the petition was dismissed with a three-month extension to pay the tax.
Review petition dismissed; three months time granted to pay the tax amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936
RP.No. 778 of 2014 IN WA.473/2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 473/2010 DATED 11-04-2014
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY :
K.V.VARGHESE, AGED 73 YEARS,
S/O.ITTAN VARKEY KANNETH THARAVAD, VADAYAMPADY AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.SEBASTIAN CHEMPAPILLY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 778 of 2014 IN WA.473/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXIHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE APPELLANT
ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE ILLNESS OF THE PETITIONER'S SON.
ANNEXURE III : PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE KITCHEN,
ANNEXURE IV : PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING CHIMNEY ATTACHED TO THE KITCHEN.
ANNEXURE VI : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2009 SENT BY THE APPELLANT TO THE SECRETARY, POOTHRUKKA PANCHAYAT WITH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
R.P. No. 778 of 2014 IN
W.A. No. 473 OF 2010
O R D E R
Shaffique, J.
This Review Petition is filed by the appellant in W.A. No.473 of 2010. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the review petitioner that this Court did not advert to the judgment in P.A. Kuttiyali Haji v. The District Collector, Malappuram and others in W.P.(C) No.22715 of 2007 which could not be brought to the notice of this Court, wherein the learned Single Judge made an observation that if the petitioner has no Chimmini, then the claim of firewood area, in the modern house is bogus. On this basis the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the existence of firewood area has to be considered. It is also contended that there is no proper measurement of the building in terms of the provisions of the Building Tax Act, 1975 and that the review petitioner was not under obligation to pay luxury tax.
R.P. No. 778 of 2014 IN WA No. 473 of 2010
-:2:-
for the purpose of computing the plinth area of the building for paying building tax under the Act. We have come to the finding that if exemption is to be granted, the area is to be used for the purpose of storage of firewood. Merely for the reason that some firewood is stored in the kitchen area, the same would not become firewood storage area.
Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of record to review the judgment. Hence the Review Petition is dismissed. However, we grant the petitioner three months time to pay the amount.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/14/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an area used for storing firewood in a kitchen qualifies for exemption from building tax as a firewood storage area.
Whether the building measurement was properly computed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.A. Kuttiyali Haji v. The District CollectorReferred¶39
P.A. Kuttiyali Haji v. The District Collector, Malappuram and others in W.P.(C) No.22715 of 2007
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.V.Varghease
State of Kerala
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
