Allowed

Kadakkal Educational Trust (Sh Engineering College), Kadakkal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Oct 2017WP(C)/2048/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that collecting property tax from an unaided educational institution for periods prior to the government-mandated assessment date was illegal. The collected amounts must be refunded or adjusted. Demand notices issued without prior assessment were quashed, with a direction to complete the assessment regularly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to refund collected amounts or adjust them for future tax; Quashing of demand notices; Mandate to complete fresh assessment within three months.

Kadakkal Educational Trust (Sh Engineering… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/20TH ASWINA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2048 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

KADAKKAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST (SHM ENGINEERING COLLEGE), KADAKKAL, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI.S.MUHAMMED RASHEED, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU

¶9

SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM -695 001.

¶12

2. KADAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAKKAL P.O, KOLLAM -691 536.

¶14

3. SECRETARY,

¶15

KADAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADAKKAL P.O, KOLLAM -691 536.

¶16

R1 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NAZAR.C.M. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU

¶17

SMT.RENY ANTO

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).No. 2048 of 2016 (E)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

P1A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 12.4.2012 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT

¶24

P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR REMITTING RS. 1,04,277 ON 21.2.2011

¶25

P2(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF RS.10,820 FOR THE YEAR 2010 ON 20.1.2011

¶26

P2(B)- A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF RS. 60291 FOR THE 2ND HALF OF 2009-2010 REMITTED ON 21.2.2011

¶27

P3A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.3.2014

¶28

P4A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2016

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 2048 of 2016

¶36

===================================================== Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2017

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the levy of property tax in respect of the buildings owned by the petitioner for the period from 2009-10 to 2010-11 and the collection of the said amounts from the petitioner through Exts.P2 , P2(a) and P2(b) receipts issued to the petitioner. The petitioner also impugn Exts.P3 and P4 demand notices that have been served on the petitioner for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, although the levy of property tax on the buildings owned by the petitioner was effective from 07.10.2009, pursuant to the amendment to Section 207 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, with effect from the said date, by Ext.P1 circular dated 12.04.2012, the State Government had clearly indicated that, although the amendments had come into force from 07.10.2009, the assessment to buildings belonging to unaided recognised educational institutions would be done only from 14.01.2011, the date on which the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Property Tax, Service Cess, and Surcharge) Rules, came into force. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of Ext.P1 circular issued by the State Government, the collection of property tax from

¶39

-2-

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 2048 of 2016

¶41

the petitioner as evidenced by Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) are wholly illegal and are liable to be set aside. It is also pointed out that Exts.P3 and P4 demand noticeswere not preceded by any notice issued to the petitioner or any assessment proceedings that followed and hence, the said notices also cannot be legally sustained.

¶42

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

¶43

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of

¶44

the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and on a perusal of the averments in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of Ext.P1 circular issued by the State Government, the levy and collection of property tax in respect of the buildings owned by the petitioner for the period prior to 1.01.2011 cannot be legally sustained. I also find that Exts.P3 and P4 demand notices had been issued without serving any notice on the petitioner or completing any assessment as required under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules.

¶45

W.P.(C). No. 2048 of 2016

¶46

-3-

¶47

Accordingly, I hold that the collection of property tax from the petitioner as evidenced by Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) receipts is illegal and the respondent Panchayat shall either refund the amounts collected from the petitioner to him, or adjust the amounts paid by the petitioner towards the future liability of the petitioner to property tax as and when assessed. As regards Exts.P3 and P4 demand notices, I quash the same for the reason that they were not preceded by any assessment proceedings, and direct the respondent Panchayat to complete the assessment to property tax in relation to the buildings belonging to the petitioner for the period subsequent to 14.01.2011 in accordance with law and after hearing the petitioner. The respondent Panchayat shall pass fresh orders as directed for the period aforementioned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The challenge against the validity of Section 207 of the Panchayat Raj Act is left open to be decided in appropriate case.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶49

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶50

das/ 13.10.2017

Kadakkal Educational Trust (Sh Engineering College), Kadakkal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadakkal Educational Trust (Sh Engineering College), Kadakkal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Nisha Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Varkey Johny Vs Joseph Sebastian

Elizabeth Ninan Vs Usha Titus

A.V Sidheek Vs the Authorized Officer

Local Level Monitoring Committee Vs Hamza P.T.

Mar Baselios College of Engg & Technology Vs the Corporation of Trivandrum