Dismissed

M/S. Evm Heavy Commercial Vehicles, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2023WP(C)/4291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's application for exemption from building tax. The Court held that the finding that the building was principally used as a workshop was a question of fact within the authority's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no specific relief granted regarding the tax demand.

M/S. Evm Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4291 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

M/S. EVM HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES,
BUILDING NO. TC 65/3294 (1), KOLLATHARA THIRUVALLAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT OPPOSITE
KUMARTHUPADY TEMPLE, CHANDIROOR P.O, NH-47, ALAPPUZHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. JIMMY JOSE,
S/O. LATE JOSE THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS, PIN - 688547

¶7

BY ADV BIJU ABRAHAM

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAKKAKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶11

JASMINE M.M.-GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 4291 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2023

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning Ext.P6 order denying exemption for payment of building tax by the petitioner under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 of the buildings situated in Village Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk and District.

¶18

The petitioner filed an application for exempting the said building from payment of building tax. The petitioner requested the Assessing Authority, the Tahsildar to refer the matter to the State Government for granting exemption under the provisions of Section 3(1) (b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. A report in form-1 was called from the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar issued a notice of hearing to the petitioner under Rule 9(2)/9(4) of the Building Tax Rules for personal hearing to the petitioner. At the time of enquiry by the Tahsildar, the petitioner had

¶19

WP(C) NO. 4291 OF 2023
3

¶20

submitted that the said building was being used as a ‘workshop’ and therefore, exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) should be granted to the said building.

¶21

The petitioner’s building was inspected and it was found that the ground floor of the concrete building having an area of 511.68 square metre on the north side, the first floor of the said building was used for office purposes and the second floor was covered with sheeting and is not currently in use. It was also noticed that there was another building adjacent to the said building which has a roof and two sides made of stone and the front of the said building was open and the total floor area of the said building was 633.34 square metres out of the said area of 633.34 square metres 125.30 square meters was being used as sales area and the rest was used as workshop area. Apart from this, the Tahsildar reported the floor area measuring of 44.42 square meters is situated 9.50 metre south of the said building was used as customer lounge and two more sheds measuring 32.40

¶22

WP(C) NO. 4291 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

square metres and 34.40 square metres are situated 550 metre south of the said building were also found.

¶25

From examination of the usage pattern, the Authority noticed that the exhibition and sale of Ashok Leyland vehicles are mainly taking place in the said buildings and the workshop attached to the sales center was only with floor area of 1256.24 square meters in which sale of Heavy Commercial Vehicle was being done, the said area of 1256.24 square meters would not be covered for exemption under Section 3(1)(b).

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, the application of the petitioner for exemption from payment of building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, for non-domestic buildings operated by AVM Heavy Commercial Vehicles was rejected.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained license in respect of the whole area and the principal use of the building is workshop. Therefore, the impugned order is incorrect and be set aside.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 4291 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

I have considered the submissions. Section 3(1)

¶31

(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 read as under:

¶32

“(b) buildings used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factories or workshops.”

¶33

The building is principally used as workshop etc. and it is entitled for exemption from payment of the building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The question whether the building is principally used as a workshop is a question of fact. The competent authority after obtaining the report from the Tahsildar, who had submitted the report after the inspection of the building, has been of the opinion that the building is principally used as a workshop and only a portion of the building is used as a shop. This is the question of fact and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction with limited scope cannot interfere with the question of fact recorded by the respondent No.1 while rejecting the application of the petitioner for exemption from payment of the building tax.

¶34

WP(C) NO. 4291 OF 2023

¶35

¶36

In view of the above, I find no much substance in the

¶37

present writ petition therefore, the writ petition is hereby

¶38

dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP(C) NO. 4291 OF 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4291/2023

¶46

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`ExhibitP1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NUMBERS) SHOWING TH` `WORKSHOP CONSTRUCTE`	`PHOTOGRAPHS (3 IN` `E ORIGINAL SITE AND THE` `D`
`ExhibitP2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `FACTORIES AND BOILE` `DATED 19-07-2018`	`PERMIT GRANTED UNDER THE` `RS ACT TO THE PETITIONER`
`ExhibitP3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `CERTIFICATE ISSUED` `POLLUTION CONTROL B` `DATED 14-11-2018`	`CONSENT TO OPERATE` `BY THE KERALA STATE` `OARD TO THE PETITIONER`
`ExhibitP4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT TO THE P` `2022`	`LETTER GIVEN BY THE 2ND` `ETITIONER DATED 22-06-`
`ExhibitP5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE T` `2022`	`REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE` `HE 2ND RESPONDENT 30-06-`
`ExhibitP6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 11-01-2023 OF`	`ORDER NO. 192/2023/RD` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`ExhibitP7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 28-01-2023 OF` `THE PETITIONER`	`ORDER OF ASSESSMENT` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO`
`ExhibitP8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `28-01-2023`	`DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY` `TO THE PETITIONER DATED`

M/S. Evm Heavy Commercial Vehicles, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Evm Heavy Commercial Vehicles, 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

M/S. White Metals Asperos, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd, Vs State of Kerala

Indira Devi, Vs the Secretary

Bhaskaran.v Vs Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragr

Deepu C. Jose, Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Beena Anil Pillai @ S. Beena, Vs Tahsildar (Rr)