Allowed

Uma Maheshwari v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC13 Jul 2020WP(C)/14018/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala quashed an assessment order and demand notice under the Building Tax Act. The Court held that the Tahsildar erred in refusing a belated exemption claim without referring the doubtful issue to the Government as mandated by Section 3(1). The petition was disposed of with a direction to refer the matter for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P5 assessment order, Ext.P7 order, and directed Tahsildar to refer the exemption issue to the Government within one month.

Uma Maheshwari Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14018 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UMA MAHESHWARI AGED 35 YEARS W/O.KRISHNAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR M/S.C.K.S PRODUCTS FACTORY SRAPILLI J.N EZHAKKARANADU P.O ERNAKULAM

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.SREEHARI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATUPUZHA-686673

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶12

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA-686673

¶13

MANEED GRAMAPANCHAYATH MANEED P.O, ERNAKULAM-686726 SECRETARY. [email protected] REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.GOVINDAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

W.P.(C).No.14018 of 2020

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 assessment order and demand notice issued under the Building Tax Act, and Ext.P7 order of the Tahsildar, which refused to consider the claim for exemption preferred by the petitioner. In Ext.P7 order, the Tahsildar does not consider the claim for exemption stating that the claim for exemption was raised belatedly and after passing of the assessment order. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim for exemption has, at any rate, to be considered by the Tahsildar at first instance and if he is not able to decide the issue in favour of the petitioner, then he is obliged to refer the issue to the Government for adjudication under Section 3(1) of the Building Tax Act.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶20

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of Ext.P7 order that the Tahsildar has essentially abdicated his responsibility of considering the application for exemption although it was belatedly raised by the assessee. Under Section 3 of the Building Tax Act, the issue of exemption when raised has to be referred to the Government in the event of the Tahsildar having any doubt with regard to the merit of the

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C).No.14018 of 2020

¶23

claim. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P7 order of the Tahsildar cannot be legally sustained.

¶24

Resultantly, I quash Ext.P5 assessment order and demand notice, and Ext.P7 communication of the Tahsildar, and direct the Tahsildar to refer the issue of exemption to the Government within a period of one month from today. The Government shall on its part consider the issue of exemption raised by the petitioner within a further period of one month from the date of receipt of the communication from the Tahsildar, after hearing the petitioner either through a physical hearing or through video conferencing. The Tahsildar shall pass fresh orders of assessment in relation to the petitioner only after receiving the orders from the Government on the issue of exemption raised. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of the judgment before the respondents for further action.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶27

mns/13.7.2020

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C).No.14018 of 2020

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT -P1 TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2019

¶33

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF UDYOG AADHAR

¶34

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL NO.G1-4862/2019 DATED 03.07.2019

¶35

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE NO G18ERNA-CTO-92441 DATED 14.06.2019

¶36

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE C6/5767/2019 DATED 16.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶37

EXHIBIT P5(A)- TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5

¶38

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2019

¶39

EXHIBIT P6(A)- TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6

¶40

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF REPLY C6-5767/2019 DATED 13.01.2020

¶41

EXHIBIT P7(A)- TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7

¶42

EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 27.01.2020

¶43

EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO A7-1122/2020 DATED 04.06.2020

¶44

EXHIBIT P9(A)- TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9

¶45

EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR

¶46

EXHIBIT P10(A)- TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P10

Uma Maheshwari v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Maheshwari v. the Tahsildar

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

Bejoy Syriac Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Nagendra Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Elite Agro Specialities Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sunilkumar Vs Authorised Officer

Sailaja B C Nair Vs the State Bank of India

Sivanantha Dhas M. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization (Epf)