Allowed

Sureshan v. District Collector, Thrissur

Kerala HC25 May 2016WP(C)/8304/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an assessment order fixing building area at 286.22 m². Holding that unenclosed aluminium sheet roofing cannot form the basis for assessment, the court directed reassessment of the taxable area at 243.12 m² and modification of the demand.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 is quashed. The assessing authority shall reassess the building at 243.12 M² and make necessary demand for the tax payable.

Sureshan Vs District Collector, Thrissur — 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 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8304 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SURESHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, KANDAMPULLY HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER LIJI A.R.

¶8

2. LIJI A.R., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SURESHAN, KANDAMPULLY HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-678 001.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-678 001.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-682 503.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KATTAKAMBAL, THRISSUR-682 503.

¶15

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-682 502.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 8304 of 2012 (K)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AFTER EXAMINING THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/05/2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G8-38255/10 DATED 27/06/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER B8-19894/08/59 DATED 01/03/2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No.8304 of 2012

¶33

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 by which he is assessed to the building tax under the Building Tax Act, 1975 by fixing the total area of the building at 286.22 M² and he is called upon to pay the Luxury Tax as well.

¶36

According to the petitioner, the area was wrongly decided. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P4 order passed by the District Collector, the appellate authority, calling upon the Tahsildar to reassess the building taking into account the fact that temporary structures had been constructed for covering the building from rain, which is liable to be excluded from the assessment of Building Tax.

¶37

A counter affidavit has been filed in which the 3^rd respondent submits that the total area excluding the sheet-roofed part comes to 243.12 M² and the area with roof covered by aluminium sheet comes to 43.1 M² . Further it is stated that the sheet covered area is having a parapet with a height of 70 centimetres and the top of the parapet is enclosed with a wire mesh.

¶38

An additional counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that the sentence which read “the top of the parapet is enclosed with a wire mesh” is a mistake.

¶39

W.P.(C) No.8304 of 2012

¶40

¶41

Having regard to the fact that the roof covered aluminium sheets are not enclosed, it cannot form the basis for an assessment of building tax under the Building Tax Act. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the area involved is only 243.12 M² and the petitioner can be assessed building tax only for the said extent.

¶42

In the result, this writ petition is allowed as under : Ext.P6 is quashed. The assessing authority shall reassess the building at 243.12 M² and make necessary demand for the tax payable.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶45

Sureshan v. District Collector, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshan v. District Collector, Thrissur

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

T.Rathish Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Eldho Ealias Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sanwar Vs Authorised Officer

Deepa Varghese Vs the District Collector

Libiya John Vs the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam

Jabin Jalal Vs Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.