Allowed

Raja and Rajas Saw Mill and Timbers (P) Ltd., v. Irinjalakuda Municipality

Kerala HC20 Feb 2019WP(C)/3180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a notice seeking payment of property tax for a building classified as a saw mill. The court directed the petitioner to pay the tax under protest and ordered that the pending regularization application be processed immediately upon such payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay the tax under protest; regularisation application to be processed immediately upon payment.

Raja and Rajas Saw Mill and Timbers (P) Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3180 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAJA AND RAJAS SAW MILL AND TIMBERS (P) LTD., MAPRANAM, IRINJALAKUDA, TRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DASAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 54 YEARS.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI SRI.M.C.ASHI

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA-680121.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA-680121.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.S.AMBILY, SC, IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 3180 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P4 communication dated 11.01.2019, issued by the Secretary of the Irinjalakuda Municipality, directing the petitioner to pay property tax in accordance with the UA number provided to the petitioner.

¶17

Admittedly, three buildings were constructed by the petitioner without securing permits from the Municipality. Thereupon, when the petitioner submitted an application for occupancy, UA numbers were provided and property tax are imposed against the buildings in question. Petitioner paid the property tax on account of two buildings, ie, XV/103A(UA) and XV/103B(UA). However, the property tax demanded as per Ext.P4 against the building No.XV103C(UA) was not paid by the petitioner on the ground that, the assessment is made by the Municipal Secretary treating the building as a storage building, whereas, the building constructed by the petitioner is a Saw Mill. According to the petitioner, the said building in question will have to be assessed as a Saw Mill and having not done so,

¶18

the tax demanded cannot be sustained under law.

¶19

WP(C).No. 3180 of 2019 3

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶21

and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶22

Even though, various contentions are advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel submitted that, petitioner may be permitted to pay the tax imposed and contained under Ext.P4 against the disputed building in question under protest, and a further direction may be issued to process the regularization applications submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶23

In fact, as per Ext.P3 judgment, a direction

¶24

was issued by this court to consider the regularization applications submitted by the

¶25

petitioner. However, it is quite clear and evident from Ext.P4 that, the applications were under process before the Secretary, and since the petitioner has not paid the tax imposed against the disputed building, it is not considered. If the petitioner is paying the tax imposed against the building in question, the same shall be received from the petitioner and recorded as under protest, and if and when the said tax is paid, the

¶26

WP(C).No. 3180 of 2019 4

¶27

regularization applications submitted by the petitioner shall be processed in accordance with law as is directed in Ext.P3 judgment, at the earliest possible time.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 20.02.2019

WP(C).No. 3180 of 2019 5

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE BUILDING NO.XV/103A (UA) DATED 05.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE BUILDING NO.XV/103B (UA) DATED 05.11.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.20710/2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 11.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

P.A. TO JUDGE

Raja and Rajas Saw Mill and Timbers (P) Ltd., v. Irinjalakuda Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja and Rajas Saw Mill and Timbers (P) Ltd., v. Irinjalakuda Municipality

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

Santhosh.M Vs Bharathan

Ajeesh N, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

N.P.Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala

Joe Rodrigues Vs Mohammed Y. Safirulla

Safe Homes Developers Private Limited Vs Kannur Muncipal Corporation

Malabar Agricultural and General Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd, Vs the State of Kerala