Allowed

Nijunjam Constructions Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2023WP(C)/3851/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam held that requiring a builder to pay building tax for an entire building as a single unit was unjustifiable when apartments were sold separately. The impugned orders assessing the petitioner were set aside with directions to issue notices to the concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P5 to P7 (assessing orders) set aside; respondents directed to complete assessment after issuing due notices to concerned parties.

Nijunjam Constructions Private Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO.3851 OF 2014

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED INDRAPRASTHAM, TC 4/2554(3), PATTOM-KOWDIYAR ROAD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER, R.SREEGITH, MANAGER (LEGAL).

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SMT.R.BINDU SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.M.K.LEELAKUMARI SMT.A.V.PRIYA

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

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

¶11

2 TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 VILLAGE OFFICER KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

SMT.RESMITHA R CHANDRAN, GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO.3851 OF 2014

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 13th day of July, 2023

¶19

This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 to P7 orders issued by the assessing authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 requiring the petitioner, who is only engaged to carry out the construction in the property, to pay building tax in respect of the apartments constructed for and on behalf of separate owners.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction had been carried out in a parcel of property in Survey No.502/06 of Pattom Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk and that the construction was completed in 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner was only the builder entrusted with carrying out the construction in question and that the owners of the land as well as the individual apartments were separate individuals. It is submitted that the owners of the property in question had retained three of the apartments and all other apartments had been sold to separate purchasers. However, on the sole ground that there were deficiencies in the documents produced by the separate purchasers and that stamp duty paid by the purchasers was deficient, the respondents have proceeded to assess the building as a single unit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the stamp duty paid was deficient, the respondents could not have

¶21

WP(C) NO.3851 OF 2014

¶22

-: 3 :-

¶23

declined to consider the sale of the separate units and that action could have been taken, at best, only against the owners of the apartments for undervaluation.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader submits that sufficient documents had not been produced by the owners to show that the apartments had been sold as separate units. Even if that be so, the notices should have been issued to the persons who claim to be the owners of the properties and necessary steps should have been taken in accordance with law. I am of the opinion that the action of the respondents in requiring the petitioner to pay the building tax in respect of the entire building, treating it as a single unit, was completely unjustifiable.

¶25

In the above view of the matter, Exts.P5 to P7 are set aside. The respondents will be free to complete the assessment, in accordance with law, after issuing due notices to the concerned parties.

¶26

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶27

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶28

Jvt/19.7.2023

¶29

WP(C) NO.3851 OF 2014

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3851/2014

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-

¶33

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY,DATED 30-01- 2014 EXECUTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER, IN FAVOUR OF R.SREEGITH, MANAGER (LEGAL) OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE POWER-OF-ATTORNEY, DATED 26-03- 2004 EXECUTED BY SMT. K.SYAMALA DEVI, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER/BUILDER AND MR. V.ANIL KUMAR, DATED 21-07-2004.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 9519/2005, DATED 13-10-2005, EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER, IN FAVOUR OF MR. V.ANIL KUMAR.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D6-21346/07, DATED 28-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT NO. D6- 21346/07/DDIS, DATED 18-01-2014, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. D6- 21346/07/DDIS DATED 18-01-2014, WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Nijunjam Constructions Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nijunjam Constructions 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisha K S Vs Sheeba George

K.J. Julius Vs the State of Kerala

Mylaady Ware Housing Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

The Board of Directors of the Irinjalakuda Co-Operative Hospital Ltd. No.R 954, Vs the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

Mcs Advertisers Vs Pudusseri Grama Panchayat

Ramesh Ravi Vs Kizhkkambalam Grama Panchayat