Dismissed

Aboobacker v. the Thahsildar, Koyilandy

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016WP(C)/29973/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a building tax and luxury tax assessment. The Judge declined to decide on merits based on newly produced documents and directed the petitioner to file a revision before the District Collector under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1995, after depositing the requisite amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a revision before the District Collector under Section 13 of the Act within three weeks and remit a further Rs. 4,000/-.

Aboobacker Vs the Thahsildar, Koyilandy — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 29973 of 2015 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ABOOBACKER,

¶8

C/O.KOYAKUTTY, PUNATHIL HOUSE, NADERI P.O., KOYILANDI VIA, KOZHIKODE- 673 326.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE THAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 326.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 324.

¶13

3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE- 673 001.

¶14

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶15

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BOBBY JOHN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 29973 of 2015 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

----------------------EXT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER.

¶21

EXT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/05/12 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 21/06/2012.

¶23

EXT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

¶24

EXT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/05/2012 FOR PAYMENT OF LUXURY TAX FOR THE PERIOD 2011-12 AND 2012-13 AMOUNTING TO RS.4000/-.

¶25

EXT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/05/12 FOR PAYMENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT OF RS.2250/- TOWARDS BUILDING.

¶26

EXT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ARIKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶27

EXT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/08/2015.

¶28

EXT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20/07/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶34

============== W.P.C.No. 29973 of 2015

¶35

==================

¶36

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the Tahsildar and Ext.P4 Appellate order by the Sub Collector arising under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1995. As per the assessment made by the Assessment Authority, the total area of the building comes to 288.49 sq.ft, as a result, the petitioner was called upon to remit Rs.9,000/- as building tax and luxury tax for three years coming to Rs.6,000/-. In the appeal, the petitioner contended that the petitioner had made a construction earlier in the year 1975 and that additional constructions had been made. Hence, the assessment ought to have made under Section 5(3) of the Act. It is also contended that there was a storage space in the first floor of the building, which should have been excluded from assessment and if the said area is excluded, the petitioner will not be liable to pay the luxury tax in terms under Section 5A of the Act.

¶39

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that no materials have been produced to indicate that the petitioner had constructed any building in the year

¶40

W.P.C.No. 29973 of 2015

¶41

¶42

It is also observed that the storage space being in the first floor cannot be excluded. The petitioner approached this Court being faced with demand notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, by which the petitioner was called upon to remit Rs.16,750/-.

¶43

As a condition for stay, this Court directed the petitioner to pay remit Rs.5,000/-, as per interim order dated 01.10.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount had already been deposited.

¶44

Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent supporting the stand taken by them. It is stated that there was no material to indicate that any construction made in the year 1975. Further, a storage space cannot be an area on the first floor of the building and therefore, the said area cannot be excluded from assessment. It is stated that the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Authority had passed orders after referring to the relevant material and therefore there is no reason to challenge the said orders.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner however places reliance on Exts.P7 & P8 certificates issued by the Arikulam Grama Panchayath. In Ext.P7 it is stated that as per the assessment register available in the Panachayth building

¶46

W.P.C.No. 29973 of 2015

¶47

¶48

No.2/619 was in the name of one Valiyapunathil Koyakutty during the assessment year 1972-73. Further, building No.1/259 was in the name of the very same person during the assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02. It is stated that these documents will clearly prove that the petitioner would not liable to pay the building tax as demanded and even luxury tax.

¶49

Primafacie, I do not think that this Court should enter into a finding on the basis of additional documents produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner should be given one more opportunity to produce sufficient documents to prove their claim.

¶50

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had not availed of the revisional remedy in terms of Section 13 of the Act, without going into the merits of the contentions raised, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to prefer a revision before the District Collector. Petitioner can produce all necessary documents to substantiate his contention in the matter.

¶51

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶52

W.P.C.No. 29973 of 2015

¶53

¶54

i) Petitioner shall file a revision before the District Collector in terms of Section 13 of the Act within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

ii) Petitioner having already remitted Rs.5,000/- he shall remit a further amount of Rs.4,000/- before the Revisional Authority, with proof of remittance of Rs.5,000/-.

¶56

iii) On the petitioner submitting a revision and making the aforesaid payment, the District Collector shall consider the revision in accordance with law and pass an order within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the revision memorandum along with the requisite fee as stated above.

¶57

Sd/-A.M.SHAFFIQUE, Judge.

¶58

lsn

Aboobacker v. the Thahsildar, Koyilandy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker v. the Thahsildar, Koyilandy

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

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs Union of India

Jose Kumar T Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

M/S. Travancore Rubbers Ltd. Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Bushara Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Biju S. Vs the Manager, the Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

M/S.Evm Automobiles P Ltd. Vs State of Kerala