Allowed

M/S. Puravankara Limited, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2023WP(C)/9646/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged building tax assessment orders passed without considering submitted evidence of individual flat ownership. The court set aside the orders for lack of detailed consideration and remanded the matter for a fresh order after reviewing individual ownership documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment orders and demand notices set aside; matter remanded to the Tahsildar/Kochi Corporation for a fresh order after considering evidence on individual ownership.

M/S. Puravankara Limited, 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 12TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9646 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. PURAVANKARA LIMITED,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO:130/1,

¶8

ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN 560042 AND BRANCH OFFICE AND
ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION AT M/S. PURAVANKARA LIMITED, FIRST
FLOOR, AREEKKAL MANSION,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,PIN – 682036.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY;
SREEJITH LENINDAS.

¶9

BY ADVS.
 SRI. JOLLY JOHN
 SMT. IRENE BABU
 SMT. LIZA MEGHAN CYRIAC

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695001.

¶12

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, X69V+2HV, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682001.

¶13

3 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, PARK AVE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682011.

¶14

4 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR 1, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, PARK AVE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682011.

¶15

5 CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVE RD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN – 682011.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

 SRI. C. N. PRABHAKARAN
 SMT. RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN – GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 9646 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.9646 of 2023

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by Exhibits P-14, P-15, P-16 and P-17 demand notices. Petitioner has constructed housing complex ON a parcel of land having an area of 10495.78 sq. m. comprised in Survey Nos.843, 2535/1 and 2536 in Ernakulam village. Petitioner has constructed 265 apartments.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that most of the apartments have been transferred in favour of the individual buyers and even the sale deeds have been registered in their favour. However the assessing authority under the provision of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 considered 71 apartments out of 265, under the ownership of the petitioner and the building tax was assessed in respect of the 71 apartments taking the plinth area of these 71 apartments as one unit for the purposes of building tax and luxury tax. Aggrieved by the order, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21923/2020. This Court set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the 3^rd respondent for fresh

¶27

WP(C) NO. 9646 OF 2023

¶28

¶29

consideration for disposal in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in the order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted all the necessary documents for consideration before the 3^rd respondent for passing a fresh order. However, without considering the documents, an identical order has been again passed in Exhibits P-13 and P-14 for which the Exhibit P-15 notice has been issued for recovery.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tendered a list of owners of individual apartments, sale deed numbers and flat number, agreement dates, sale deed date as well as the plinth area of individual apartment. She also submits that the said list along with supporting documents were submitted before the assessing authority. However, the assessing authority without considering the evidence has again passed the same order in cryptic manner. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the authority failed to act upon as per the direction given by this Court vide Exhibit P-9 Judgment, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for passing fresh order after taking into consideration of the evidence/documents and material submitted by the petitioner in respect of the individual

¶31

WP(C) NO. 9646 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

flats which is owned by the persons in whose favour the sale deed have been executed.

¶34

Ms. Reshmita Ramachandran, Learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner did not produce the relevant documents and sought adjournment despite specific direction given by this Court vide Exhibit P-9 Judgment that the petitioner would not seek unnecessary adjournment. She further submits that Exhibit P-13 order passed by the 3^rd respondent discloses the reasons for disallowing the benefit of the provision of explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Since the petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents and material in support of the petitioner’s claim, the authority cannot be defaulted with for passing Exhibits P-13, P-14 and P-15.

¶35

I have considered the submissions. It appears that the petitioner has submitted the documents in respect of the individual owners of each flat constructed by the petitioner in the housing complex known as Purva Grand Bay. The impugned order Exhibit P- 5 does not disclose detailed consideration of the evidence and the material submitted by the petitioner in respect of the individual ownership of the flats constructed by the petitioner. A general

¶36

WP(C) NO. 9646 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

observation has been made that 71 flats are not entitled for the benefit of the explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. I find that the order and reasons given in Exhibit P-13 on the basis of which assessment has been made and the claim of the petitioner for benefit of explanation 2 to Section 2(e) has been denied is not at all satisfactory.

¶39

In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed and impugned Exhibits P-13, P-14 and demand notice Exhibit P-15 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent to pass a fresh order. The petitioner is permitted to appear before the 3^rd respondent on or before 12.10.2023 with all the relevant documents in support of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. After considering the evidences and material, the 3^rd respondent shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The order must refer the consideration of the evidence submitted by the petitioner.

¶40

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶41

Svn

¶42

WP(C) NO. 9646 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9646/2023

¶45

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶46

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FRO` `CORPORATION` `OF` `COCHIN` `BEARING`	`M THE` `NO.`
	`MOP1/348/05 DATED 31.10.2005 ALONG` `SUBSEQUENT MEMOS OF EXTENSION`	`WITH`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIMEN SALE AGR` `DATED 05.12.2011`	`EEMENT`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIMEN CONSTR` `AGREEMENT DATED 05.12.2011`	`UCTION`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FORM APPENDIX-H` `21.02.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITION` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE CO` `LETTER`	`DATED` `ER TO` `VERING`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER RECEIPT` `25.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDE` `THE PETITIONER ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEI` `EXHIBIT P-4 APPLICATION`	`DATED` `NT TO` `PT OF`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE` `13.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDE` `THE PETITIONER`	`DATED` `NT TO`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED LIS` `ALLOTTEES TO EACH APARTMENT IN THE APA` `COMPLEX`	`T OF` `RTMENT`
`Exhibit P8(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMEN` `DEMAND NOTICE NO. B3/16487(195)/2014` `09.12.2021`	`T AND` `DATED`
`Exhibit P8(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSE` `NO. B3/16487(195)/2014 DATED 09.12.202`	`SSMENT` `1`
`Exhibit P8(c)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS` `B3/16487(195)/2014 DATED 09.12.2021`	`NO.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT` `20.10.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 21923/2022`	`DATED`

¶47

WP(C) NO. 9646 OF 2023

¶48

¶49

`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE NO.` `PL/GB/OTBT/22-23/010 DATED 27.10.2022 AND`
	`ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B3-16487/14` `DATED 08.11.2022 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COVER LETTER ALONG WITH THE` `WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 19.11.2022 FILED` `BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE` `ANNEXURES`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. B3-` `16487/2014 DATED 25.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE` `3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND` `DEMAND NOTICE NO. B3/16487(195)/2014 DATED` `25.11.2022`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT` `NO. B3/16487(195)/2014 DATED 25.11.2022`
`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.` `B3/16487(195)/2014 DATED 25.11.2022`
`Exhibit P17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE RRC NO.` `2023/5777/07 DATED 16.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE` `4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P18`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE NO. B3-16487/14` `PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT R3(B) IN W.P.(C)` `NO.21923/2022`
`Exhibit P19`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PL/TASHIL-` `KANAYA/21-22/0012 DATED 28.09.2021 PRODUCED`
	`AS EXHIBIT R3(C) IN W.P.(C) NO.21923/2022`

M/S. Puravankara Limited, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Puravankara 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

Girija Rajan Vs Station House Officer

P.R. Rajeev, Vs Commissioner of Customs, Customs (Preventive)

Anilkumar a.v., Vs Regional Transport Officer

Spinny Varghese K, Vs the Tahsildar

Shastha Enterprises Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)

Navaikulam Farmers Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.1731, Vs Union of India