Allowed

Muthoot Anchor House Hotels Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2023WP(C)/17778/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of property tax remission applications claiming their hotel was closed during the pandemic. Court held applications are valid if filed within the time prescribed for tax payment, not necessarily within the half-year of vacancy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders and notices rejecting remission applications are set aside.

Muthoot Anchor House Hotels Private Limited Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 17778 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

MUTHOOT ANCHOR HOUSE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
41/4108, MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, OPPOSITE SARITHA THEATRE
COMPLEX, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018, REPRESENTED
BY ITS OPERATIONS-IN-CHARGE AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SHRI. PRAVEEN K.
BY ADVS.
JOB ABRAHAM
AJAY V.ANAND
P.S.SREE PRASAD

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN
AFFAIRS, 1ST FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR
P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶8

2 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P. B. NO.1016, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶9

BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) No.17778 of 2022

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2023

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India impugning Exts.P3, P5, P7 orders and demand notices in Exts.P8,P9, P10 and P11in respect of the property tax for which the remission applications were rejected by respondent No.2.

¶16

2 . The petitioner company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 inter alia engaged in operating under the brand name Xandari Harbour 51, at Mattanchery, Ernakulam. The petitioner owns Building Nos.3/1297 (Old No. 5/40); 3/1300; 3/1296; 3/1296A; 31296B; 3/1296C. Due to spread of pandemic, Covid-19 globally the hotel industry was severely effected and several establishments, hotels, resorts etc, were closed. The case of the petitioner is that the business premise of the petitioner was also shout down from 23.03.2020 and has remained inoperative even till date. However, to avoid decay and fire and electricity hazards, minimum employees are kept to maintain the property without any business. The petitioner

¶17

WP(C) No.17778 of 2022

¶18

¶19

had moved applications in Ext.P2, P3 and P4 for remission of property tax from 01.04.2020 to 30.09.2020, 01.10.2020 to 31.03.2021 and from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 respectively. The petitioner also moved Ext.P14 application for remission of property tax from April 2022 to September 2022, which was rejected by Ext.P15.

¶20

3 . The primary ground for rejection of these applications is that the applications were not filed within the currency of half year, and filed with some delay and therefore, the applications were not maintainable. In one of the rejection order, it has been stated that on inspection, some employees were found working at the premises.

¶21

4 . The question which falls for consideration is that whether the application has to be filed within the half financial year claiming remission from payment of the property tax or it can be filed within the time prescribed for payment of tax for the half financial year.

¶22

5 . Section 239 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, confers entitlement on the owner to remission of tax for that of half year in which the building of that owner has been

¶23

WP(C) No.17778 of 2022

¶24

¶25

vacant or unlet. Section 239(2) entitles the owner to get refund of the tax if he has paid in respect of half year in which he is entitled to claim remission.

¶26

6 . For claiming remission of the property tax, the owner of the building is required to deliver a notice to the Secretary of the Municipality intimating that the building will be vacant or unlet from the specified date either in the half year in which notice is delivered or in the succeeding half year. Section 239(3)(b) contemplates that notice for remission shall expire within the half succeeding half year during which it is delivered and shall have no effect thereof.

¶27

7 . For reference, Section 239 of the Kerala Municipality Act, extracted hereunder:

¶28

239. Vacancy remission- (1) When any building whether ordinarily let or occupied by the owner himself has been vacant and unlet for a half year, the owner shall be entitled to a remission of tax for that half-year.

¶29

(2) If the owner had already paid the tax in respect of a halfyear in which a remission is due, he shall be entitled to get either refund or shall be entitled to get the amount adjusted in the tax for the succeeding half-year.

¶30

(3) (a) No such remission shall be admissible unless the owner of the building or his agent has previously thereto delivered notice to the Secretary-

¶31

WP(C) No.17778 of 2022

¶32

¶33

(i) that the building is vacant and unlet, or

¶34

(ii) that the building will be vacant and unlet from a specified date either in the half year in which notice is delivered or in the succeeding half-year.

¶35

(b) Every notice under clause(a) shall expire with the halfyear succeeding the half-year during which it is so delivered and shall have no effect thereafter.

¶36

8 . From reading the provision of Section 239, it is evident that the relevant consideration is that the building in the question must be either let out or used by the owner by himself prior to its falling vacant. The remission of tax to a building which is vacant is entitlement on the owner subject to serving notice to the Secretary that the building is vacant or unlet or the building will remain vacant or unlet from a specified date either in the half year in which the notice is delivered or in the succeeding half year. It is also relevant to note that there is no time limit prescribed for delivering such notice. This Court, however should construe the provision of Section 239 in such a manner so that its fullest effect is given to achieve the purpose of the provision for which it has been enacted keeping in mind the purpose of the provision i,e. remission of property tax on unlet or

¶37

WP(C) No.17778 of 2022

¶38

¶39

vacant property, it may be said that an application seeking remission is to be delivered to the Secretary within the reasonable time limit. What is the reasonable time limit ? In my view, it is the time limit prescribed for payment of tax for that half year in which application is delivered, inasmuch as the owner would be seeking remission of property for the half year in which the application is delivered or succeding half year. Therefore, if the application is moved for remission of property tax within the time limit prescribed from payment of the property tax, the application should be treated as within time.

¶40

9 . Except for Ext.P1 application when there was complete lock down, there is no denial of the fact in all other applications were received in the office of the Secretary within the time limit prescribed for payment of tax. It is also not in dispute that except for three applications. for remission of property tax, all other applications have been granted to the petitioner as the establishment of the petitioner has remained closed since the lock down.

¶41

WP(C) No.17778 of 2022

¶42

¶43

Therefore, I am of the view that rejecting the applications on hyper technical ground is against the very object of Section 239 which does not prescribe any time limit for filing the application but by judicial interpretation, I am of the view that the applications for claiming exemption/remission from payment of property tax would be treated if filed within the prescribed time limit for payment of the tax. Thus, the present writ petition stands allowed and impugned orders and notices are hereby set aside.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶46

¶47

WP(C) No.17778 of 2022

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17778/2022

¶50

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF REMISSION NOTICE DATED 14.05.2020` `ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF REMISSION NOTICE FOR HALF YEAR` `OCTOBER 2020 - MARCH 2021 DATED 23.02.2021` `ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING FCR-1/774/775/21` `DATED 20.03.2021 REJECTING EXHIBIT P4 REMISSION` `NOTICE.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF REMISSION NOTICE FOR FY APRIL-` `MARCH 2022 DATED 21.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE` `PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING FCR-1/1615/21 DATED` `23.07.2021 REJECTING REMISSION NOTICE FOR FY` `2021 - 2022.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 'NIL' TO THE` `HON'BLE TOURISM MINISTER.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING FCR-1/1615/21 DATED` `17.01.2022 REJECTING REMISSION NOTICE FOR FY` `2021 - 2022.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF SPECIAL NOTICE BEARING NO. 11820` `DATED 17.05.2022.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF SPECIAL NOTICE BEARING NO.11821` `DATED 17.05.2022.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF SPECIAL NOTICE BEARING NO. 11822` `DATED 17.05.2022.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF SPECIAL NOTICE BEARING NO. 11823` `DATED 17.05.2022.`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS) NO.746/2020 DATED` `08.05.2020.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 1726/2021/LSGD DATED` `10.09.2021.`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF REMISSION NOTICE FOR FY APRIL 2022` `- SEPTEMBER 2022.`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.FCR1/1737/22` `DATED 28.06.2022.`
`DOCUMENT NO.1`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3`
`DOCUMENT NO.2`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5`
`DOCUMENT NO.3`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7`
`DOCUMENT NO.4`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8`
`DOCUMENT NO.5`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9`
`DOCUMENT NO.6`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P10`
`DOCUMENT NO.7`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11`
`DOCUMENT NO.8`	`TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P15`

Muthoot Anchor House Hotels Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthoot Anchor House Hotels Private Limited 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai, Vs the Income Tax Officer

C. H. Muhammed Koya Memorial Charitable Centre Vs State of Kerala

Usha K Vs Renjith

T.I.Raju Vs State of Kerala

Mak Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Philips Carbon Black Limited Vs State of Kerala