Quashed

Mohammad Madani v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC4 Mar 2016WP(C)/1919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed an assessment order under the Kerala Building Tax Act for failing to record findings regarding the plinth area covered by truss work. The court directed the assessing authority to complete the assessment afresh after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition quashed and the first respondent directed to complete the assessment afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Mohammad Madani Vs the Tahsildar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1919 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

MOHAMMAD MADANI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KP.MUSTAFA, ABC SALES CORPORATION THALIPARAMBA 670141, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE TAHSILDAR THALIPARAMBA - 670141

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RENJITH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 1919 of 2016 (L)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.11.2015

¶22

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2011(1) KLT 956

¶23

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2015

¶24

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.08.2011 REPORTED IN 2012 (2) KHC 792

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

¶27

EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.R1(D): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 1919 of 2016

¶36

===================================================== Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 assessment order passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that, while there was a building that was earlier subjected to assessment under the Building Tax Act, the petitioner had made some improvements to the building and also covered a substantial portion of the building using truss work. It is stated that in Ext.P3 assessment order, the entire area including the area covered by truss work has been assessed to building tax, after giving deduction to the tax amounts already paid pursuant to the earlier assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the area covered by the truss work cannot be taken into reckoning for the purposes of determining the plinth area for the purposes of assessment under the Building Tax Act, as laid down by a number of decisions by this Court and hence, Ext.P3 is vitiated by a patent non application of mind by the respondent assessing authority.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 1919 of 2016

¶41

-2-

¶42

the respondents.

¶43

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that in Ext.P3 assessment order, there is no finding with regard to the area that is covered by the truss work and the area that is covered by the improvements made to the building on which there can be a levy of additional tax in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P3 order, and direct the 1^st respondent assessing authority to complete the assessment in relation to the petitioner's building afresh, after hearing him. To enable the 1^st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner or his representative, to appear before the 1^st respondent at his Office at 11 AM on 09.03.2016. The 1^st respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed adverting to the contentions and documents produced by the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶47

das /04.03.2016

Mohammad Madani v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Madani v. the Tahsildar

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

Jeevan Das Vs the Authorized Officer

Mohamed Rafi Vs the Authorised Officer,Thrissur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

N.C. Gardens & Beach Resort Vs Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal

Rison K.K Vs the Manager Kerala Gramin Bank

M/S. Annai Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ramnath S. Vs the Manager, Corporation Bank