Disposed

K.P.Krishna Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2016WP(C)/7082/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging assessment orders under Kerala Building Tax Act for a joint venture building. Court stayed the orders, directed assessment authority to admit additional evidence regarding individual ownership, and permitted fresh assessment upon proper notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petitioner granted four weeks to show cause; fresh assessment permissible after hearing and receipt of representation.

K.P.Krishna Menon Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7082 of 2009 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.P.KRISHNA MENON, AGED 72, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY APARTMENTS PRIVATE LTD., NOW RESIDING AT KANJINGHAT HOUSE, PULLEPPADY, TRIKKANIVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SANAL SRI.ANUP T. PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES), TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 7082 of 2009 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN CITY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ACHAMMA GEORGE. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT, 1975. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

*** * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.7082 of 2009

¶26

Dated this the 17^th day of August 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 by which the assessing authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 had made assessment for the entire building, having an area of 2270 sq.meters and the petitioner was called upon to remit Rs.3,11,100/-. According to the petitioner, even before the construction of the building, he had assigned the rights in respect of the undivided share as well as the apartment in favour of other persons and therefore the building was constructed as per the contribution given by such persons. Hence each of the apartment has to be separately assessed. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner was not served with any notice under Section 7(3) of the Act.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that appropriate notice under Section 7(3) of the Act was issued. When there was a failure on the part of the petitioner in filing the return, notice under Section 9(2) of the Act was also

¶30

W.P.C.No.7082/2009

¶31

¶32

issued. Still, the petitioner did not adduce any material and as a consequence of which, Exts.P2 and P3 had been issued.

¶33

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment in Sreerosh Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2010(4) KLT 5] in order to contend that in a joint venture project when the amount was contributed by separate individuals, separate assessment has to be made. In fact, the issue is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Mammikutty [2015(3) KLT 138(SC)] .

¶34

It seems that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to submit all necessary documents in relation to the same. Though it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that notices had been issued, no materials are produced before this Court to support the same. Under such circumstances, it would be appropriate to give the petitioner one more opportunity to contest the matter.

¶35

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶36

i) Exts.P2 and P3 are set aside. ii) Petitioner is given four weeks' time to produce necessary materials to show that the apartments had been

¶37

W.P.C.No.7082/2009

¶38

¶39

assigned in the name of individual owners even prior to the assessment being made or even prior to the date of contribution by such persons to the construction of the apartments.

¶40

iii) On receipt of the said representation, it shall be open for the 2^nd respondent to pass fresh assessment, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner.

¶41

(sd/-)

¶42

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶43

jsr

K.P.Krishna Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Krishna Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjaisha Vs the Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Binu .S Vs Bank of Baroda

High Range Dairy Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

The Vallapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer(Tds), Palakkad

Ugin Papli Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.

N.C.Abdul Kareem Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.