Quashed

M/S. Hi-Lite Realtors (India) LLP v. the Thahsildar

Kerala HC16 Mar 2016WP(C)/7947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an assessment order passed on a building, finding it lacked application of mind regarding separate unit ownership. The court directed the assessing authority to issue notices to individual unit owners and determine if separate assessment is appropriate within two months.

What did the court decide?

The assessment order was quashed and the Assessing Authority was directed to issue notices to unit owners and pass a fresh assessment order within two months with reasoning.

M/S. Hi-Lite Realtors (India) LLP Vs the Thahsildar — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/26TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 7947 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S. HI-LITE REALTORS (INDIA) LLP HI-LITE CITY, THONDAYAD, CALICUT (REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER MR.MEHABOOB M.A.)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI. M.P. SHAMEEM AHAMED SRI.CYRIAC TOM SRI.S.K.SAJU

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. THE THAHSILDAR KOZHIKKODE - 673 001.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA (REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PIN - 695 001.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 7947 of 2016 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.789/09-10 ISSUED BY OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED BY THE BUILDER WITH THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE SAMPLE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE BUILDER AND SUCH PURCHASERS OF SELF CONTAINED OFFICE SPACES/UNITS.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4. DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS SELF CONTAINED OFFICE SPACES ALONG WITH THE NAME OF RESPECTIVE OWNERS AND RESPECTIVE BUILDING NUMBER ALLOTED TO SUCH INDIVIDUAL UNITS BY PANCHAYAT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. B12.26622/15

¶24

EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02.02.2016.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF LISSY LYJU & OTHERS V. TAHSILDAR & OTHERS.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 7947 of 2016

¶34

===================================================== Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 assessment order passed in relation to a building, that was constructed by the petitioner. The crux of the averments in the writ petition is to the effect that the building comprises of separate units under separate ownership and therefore, the assessment ought to have been done as separate units and not by treating the building as a single unit. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, although a formal reply, incorporating the several documents which would show that the building comprised of several units belonging to different persons, was not preferred before the assessing authority, the assessing authority was appraised of the said facts, but yet the said authority chose to assess the building as a single unit and fasten the tax liability on the petitioner, who was the builder.

¶37

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

¶38

-2-

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 7947 of 2016

¶40

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I note from Ext.P6 assessment order that the said order does not reflect an application of mind by the assessing authority as regards the issue of whether the building was to be assessed as a single unit or whether the building had to be assessed as separate units for the purposes of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. I therefore, feel that Ext.P6 order of assessment ought to be quashed and I do so. Taking note of the documents that are produced before me by the petitioner in the writ petition, I am of the view that the 1^st respondent assessing authority should consider the details provided by the petitioner in the writ petition, with a view to ascertaining whether the building in question is comprised of separate units under the ownership of different persons. It would be prudent for the 1^st respondent to issue independent notices to the separate owners of individual units within the building, based on the information furnished to him by the petitioner, and consider the submission of the said persons before arriving at a decision on whether the building should be assesses as separate units for the purposes of building tax or whether the building should be assessed as a single unit for the

¶41

-3-

¶42

W.P.(C). No. 7947 of 2016

¶43

purposes of building tax. To enable the 1^st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1^st respondent at his office at 11 AM on 29.03.2016 together with all the documents to substantiate his contentions on merits, as also a list of unit owners so that notices can be sent to the said persons by the 1^st respondent before taking a decision in the matter pursuant to this judgment. The 1^st respondent shall pass fresh orders of assessment in relation to the building within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and the individual unit owners. The assessment order to be passed by the 1^st respondent shall contain reasons for the decision arrived therein.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶47

das /16.03.2016

M/S. Hi-Lite Realtors (India) LLP v. the Thahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hi-Lite Realtors (India) LLP v. the Thahsildar

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

Assanar Vs the General Manager, Palakkad District Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Surendran Vs Kerala Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bijumon K.T. Vs the Manager, Bank of India

K.Mohan Das Vs Federal Bank

Raj Kumar P Vs the Authorized Officer

Vava Technoglass India Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala