Allowed

Ultra Tech Ciment Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017WP(C)/5956/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking exemption from building tax for areas used for packing cement. Interpreting the Factories Act, the Court held that packing and unpacking constitute a manufacturing process, thus qualifying the premises as a factory entitled to exemption.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Ext.P12 order set aside; Petitioner is directed to be refunded the deposited amount within four months with interest at 7% per annum if not refunded then.

Ultra Tech Ciment Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/29TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5956 of 2014 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED, 2578/4, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003, REP. BY ITS PROJECT HEAD MR.A.R. NAIDU.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:-:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, FORT KOCHI - 682 001, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA BUILDING TAX ACT.

¶12

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N.M. JASMINE.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

None appears for the petitioner. The writ petition hence would stand

¶16

dismissed for default.

¶17

19/01/2017.

¶18

SD/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶23

W.P.(C).No.5956 of 2014

¶24

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner is concerned with Ext.P12 order which refused exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 for areas where the petitioner was found to be conducting an office, storing goods and comprised of security rooms, stair rooms as also the area where weighing activity was carried out.

¶27

The petitioner admittedly, is having a factory in the premises of Cochin Port in the State of Kerala. The petitioner was assessed to tax as per Ext.P8 under the Building Tax Act. The petitioner approached this Court claiming exemption under the Building Tax Act, which was referred to the Government and directed to be considered as per Ext.P10. Ext.P12 is the resultant

¶28

W.P.(C) No.5956/2014 - : 2 :-

¶29

order passed; declining exemption to certain substantial areas of the building and upheld the assessment with respect to the said areas.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there can be no such distinction since the factory has not been defined in the Building Tax Act and the exemption is to buildings which are used principally as a factory. The learned Government Pleader however, would point out that the intention of the legislature is to exempt the space where the industrial activities are being carried on and it cannot include an office room or areas where no such industrial activity is carried on. It is also argued that in fact the premises within the Port is used only for packing of the cement brought from Gujarat and there is no manufacturing activity as such carried on.

¶31

The exemption as available under the Building Tax Act is inter alia for buildings used principally as factories or work place. The petitioner is registered under the Factories Act 1948 which is evidenced by Ext.P5. The petitioner also is bringing cement from Gujarat and packing the same within the area leased out from the Cochin Port. There is no definition for factory

¶32

W.P.(C) No.5956/2014 - : 3 :-

¶33

as seen from the Building Tax Act. Factory as defined under the Factories Act includes any premises including the precincts thereof wherein a required number or more of workers are working. Section 2 (a) also includes packing and unpacking in the definition of manufacturing process. Hence, there can be no dispute raised that packing and unpacking carried on by the petitioner is not a manufacturing process or the area will not be covered under the definition of a factory. It is also to be noticed that the exemption is to buildings which are principally used for the specific purposes noticed in the exemption clause. There is no dispute that the building constructed in the leased out land is principally used for packing and unpacking. When a building is principally used as a factory the ancillary buildings were also held to be entitled to the exemption by this Court in 2009 (1) KLT

¶34

992 Kitex Garments Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala.

¶35

In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P12 and directing the Government to grant exemption as provided under Section 3 of the Building Tax Act. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had deposited 50% of the amounts demanded. The petitioner shall be refunded the

¶36

W.P.(C) No.5956/2014 - : 4 :-

¶37

said amount within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment; failing which the government would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit.

¶38

The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to Costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

al//7/11/17.

True copy

P.S to Judge

W.P.(C) No.5956/2014

: 5 :-

¶46

al//7/11/17 xxx

Ultra Tech Ciment Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ultra Tech Ciment Ltd. 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

K.S. Shailendranatha Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Meenakshi Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Babu Vs Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery)

Satheesan a Vs Sri.Pankajakshan

M/S.Travancore Foundations Vs the State of Kerala and Others

P.D. Soman Vs the District Collector