The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition regarding revenue recovery proceedings. The court held that since assessment was final and no exemption claim was raised during proceedings, the recovery was legally valid.
This writ appeal is dismissed.
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 MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937
WA.No. 106 of 2016 () IN WP(C).36808/2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36808/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06.01.2016
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:
JAYAKRISHNAN V.G.
DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR CARRIER DEVELOPMENT (ICD) KOLLAM, ADUTHALA P.O., NADAKKAL KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT RESIDING AT VALIYAZHIKOM, KANJAVELI P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN WPC:
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 013.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
WA106/16
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KALLUVATHUKAL VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKAL P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 578.
6. KALLUVATHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH KALLUVATHUKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 578 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
7. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
R1 TO R5 & R7 BY ADV.SOJAN JAMES, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jg-4/2
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
W.A.No.106 of 2016
.................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of January, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
2.Appellant challenges dismissal of his writ petition in which he challenged revenue recovery proceedings referable to demand under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 'KBT Act', for short. As rightly noted by the learned single Judge, assessment proceedings was completed and demand made by the competent authority. The assessment was not challenged and that had become final. That being so, as held by this Court in Mother Superior, Congregation of Sisters of Charity v. Tahsildar, Mananthavady [1987 (1) KLT 841], a claim for exemption from payment of building tax on a ground referable to Section 3 of the KBT Act, cannot thereafter be raised. This position notwithstanding, looking into the materials, we see that the writ appellant/petitioner had actually conceded to the assessment
WA106/16
-2-
inasmuch as after he was granted quarterly installment facility, he moved the office of the Revenue Minister and obtained an order for 12 monthly spread out of the installment relief. Even that was not complied with. Thereafter, the petitioner again got an order from the office of the Minister for Revenue letting him pay the total outstanding in eight installments. With all such installment facilities being extended even with the indulgence of the Government, not a penny was paid. The initiation of revenue recovery proceedings is, therefore, well founded and cannot be impeached on ground of any jurisdictional error or factual infirmity.
WA106/16
-3-
also moved the Government for exemption which was decided against the assessee by the Government. Therefore, the Government's decision refusing exemption was itself the subject matter decided through that case. The principle laid down in that precedent has no application to the facts of the case in hand. We are not impressed with the plea that the assessment order itself does not stand because the building belongs to educational institution. No such plea was projected. Exemption sought for before conclusion of assessment proceedings itself has become final. The learned single Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do not see any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the decision of the learned single Judge. This writ appeal, therefore, fails.
In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
jg-20/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings is well founded when the allotted exemption cannot be raised after assessment is completed.
Whether the principle that an assessment order vitiated by mistake of fact can be visited applies when the exemption claim has already become final.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mother Superior, Congregation of Sisters of Charity v. Tahsildar, MananthavadyApplied¶35
Mother Superior, Congregation of Sisters of Charity v. Tahsildar, Mananthavady
Dream World Water Park (M/s.), Trichur v. Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk and OthersDistinguished¶39
Dream World Water Park (M/s.), Trichur v. Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk and Others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayakrishnan V.G.
State of Kerala
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
