Remanded

Forza Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. the District Labour Officer

Kerala HC11 Feb 2020WP(C)/3403/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala accepted the petitioner's contention regarding errors in an assessment notice for building cess. Directing the assessing officer to conduct a re-assessment after inspection and deposit of certain amount, the court kept coercive proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent directed to conduct a re-assessment after inspection, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 6,64,000/- within 30 days. Coercive proceedings kept in abeyance.

Forza Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Labour Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3403 OF 2020(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FORZA REALTORS PVT LTD.

¶8

DOOR NO.2/467, SALEEMA HOSPITAL ROAD, THALKKADATHUR P. O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 103., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR JAMSHEED RAFEEQUE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED PANNIKANDATHIL.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, B3 BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER (BUILDING CESS ASSESSING OFFICER) MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, B3 BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶13

3 THE BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

SRI.S KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC SRI.RON BASTIAN, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.3403 OF 2020 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner herein challenges Ext.P10 assessment notice issued by the 2^nd respondent as per which the 2^nd respondent has assessed the building constructed by the petitioner and he was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.20,78,656/- as cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996.

¶19

According to the petitioner, he had appeared before the 2^nd respondent and narrated that the amount arrived at was not in tune with Exhibit P9 order issued by the Government as per which construction cost of different buildings in the State of Kerala was fixed for the purpose of assessment of cess. It is further pointed out that the amount calculated in Ext.P10 is clearly erroneous as the total cess is calculated as Rs.20,78,656/whereas the amount ordered to be paid by the petitioner is Rs.14,51,869/together with service charges of Rs.20,787/-. According to the petitioner, he had appeared before the Labour Officer and had filed Ext.P4 admitting that the construction of the godown was using iron rods and roofing sheets and that the total amount spent towards construction is Rs.9,64,63,035/-. It is further contended that without considering the above fact, the order was

¶20

WP(C).No.3403 OF 2020 3

¶21

made final and recovery proceedings have been initiated.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the area of the building constructed by the petitioner herein is 11383.36 sq.m. and the building was assessed in terms of the provisions of law. Exhibit P10 notice is dated 23.11.2017 and admittedly the petitioner had not appeared before the assessing officer thereafter. However it is fairly admitted that Ext.P9 was not taken note of while passing Ext.P10. He has also no explanation to offer to the discrepancies in calculation which has crept into Ext.P10. According to the learned Government Pleader, it is only just and proper that the matter be remitted back to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶23

Heard Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner herein has given an estimation of the total construction cost in Ext.P4 and he be ordered to pay the amount pending finalisation of the assessment by the 2^nd respondent.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records.

¶25

Apparently, serious errors have crept into Ext.P10 assessment

¶26

WP(C).No.3403 OF 2020 4

¶27

notice. It is doubtful whether the guidelines issued by the Government in Ext.P9 have been complied with. If the contention of the petitioner that the building has been constructed using roofing sheets and as a godown, there would be appreciable deduction in the construction cost. From Ext.P4 it appears that the petitioner has tentatively assessed the total construction cost at Rs.9,64,63,035/-. It appears that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards cess amount on 29.11.2016. If that be the case, and in view of the submission of the Government Pleader, I am of the considered opinion that the 2^nd respondent can be directed to conduct a re-assessment of the building on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.6,64,000/- before the 1^st respondent towards cess within a period of 30 days from today. If the amount is paid as aforesaid, the 2^nd respondent shall conduct a re-assessment after perusing the entire records. The 2^nd respondent shall also carry out an inspection of the premises and shall also consider as to whether, Ext.P9 has any application. Until final orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent, coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

¶28

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

sru

¶32

WP(C).No.3403 OF 2020 5

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE AREA STATEMENT OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B2-8425/15 DATED 29.10.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 6.1.2016.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 17.2.2016.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.2.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.11.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR RS.3 LACS.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.11.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR RS. 3000/-.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (KAI)/52/2017/LABOUR DATED 14.7.2017.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE NO.B2-8425/15 DATED 23.11.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

Forza Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. the District Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Forza Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. the District Labour Officer

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

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Executive Engineer,, Vs Sam C.K.

Asgar Vs P. S. Viswambharan

Santhosh K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Suresh U.M.. Vs the District Executive Officer

Shamseer Peecham Veettil, Vs the District Executive Officer