Century International Institute of Dental Science & Research Centre, Vs the State of Kerala

¶1

 2025:KER:28114

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 17021 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

CENTURY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCE
& RESEARCH CENTRE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
POINACHI, THEKKIL, KASARAGODE, PIN – 671541.

¶9

BY ADV TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671121.

¶13

3 THE ASSESSMENT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADEI,CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671121.

¶14

4 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADE-I, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671121.

¶15

5 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671123.

¶16

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 2 2025:KER:28114

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SR.G.P.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 3 2025:KER:28114

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner, stated to be an Educational Institution, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P2 show cause notice followed with the subsequent proceedings at Exts.P4, P5 and P7 proceedings issued by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents herein, demanding the Cess payable under the provisions of the Constructions Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996.

¶23

I have heard Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned senior Government Pleader.

¶24

The fact that the impugned proceedings have been issued with reference to the Cess payable under the provisions of the statute referred to above, is not in dispute. The question of demanding payment of Cess and subsequent initiation of revenue recovery proceedings arise only in situation were the building is constructed after the enactment of the statute referred to above.

¶25

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 4 2025:KER:28114

¶26

Sri.Tony, the learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioner invites the attention of this Court to Ext.P1 Sale Deed and the recitals contained therein to contend that the building in question was atleast 18 years old. He would also invite the attention of this Court to Exts.P10 and P11 – reply issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by the KSEB to contend that the building in question was one constructed in the year 1957. He would also contend that similar other documents are also available to show that the building in question was not one constructed after the appointed date. At the same time, the learned Government Pleader would invite the attention of this Court to Ext.R4(a) notice issued under the provisions of the statute followed with Ext.R4(c) assessment order to contend that it is for the petitioner to challenge the demand, before the Appellate authority under the statute. In reply, the learned counsel Sri.Tony would contend that Exts.R4(a) to (c) were never served on the petitioner, though, there is an acknowledgment produced along with the counter affidavit.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 5 2025:KER:28114

¶29

I have considered the rival submissions

¶30

raised by the parties as above.

¶31

A perusal of the reply received from the KSEB under the RTI Act, would show that the building in question, was one constructed in the year 1957. The respondents have no case that the building in question is not the one covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. Therefore, atleast from the recitals contained in Ext.P1, building was one constructed in the year 1990, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

If that be the case, there was no requirement for having proceeded against the petitioner, with reference to the provisions of the statute.

¶33

At the same time, this Court notices that, there was no proper adjudication with reference to the liability of the petitioner, with reference to the date of completion of construction as noticed above. Therefore, the matter, in my opinion requires an adjudication at the hands of the 3^rd respondent herein - the authority under the statute.

¶34

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 6 2025:KER:28114

¶35

So as to facilitate the above, Ext.R4(c) assessment order issued by the authorised officer would stand set aside.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the proceedings taken for realisation of the demand is barred by limitation, under any circumstances. He would also rely on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.18827 of 2015 to contend that even if no period of limitation is prescribed, steps are to be taken within a period of three years. I am of the opinion that the question of limitation also requires a reconsideration at the hands of the adjudicated authority. So as to facilitate the afore, Ext.R4(c) assessment order would stand set aside. The adjudicating authority under the statute to consider the question as regards the date of completion of the building, as above and to decide as to whether the provisions of the statute itself will apply or not.

¶37

The petitioner would also to be entitled to rely on additional documents before the adjudicating authority. The question of limitation, is also to be considered by the adjudicating authority, with reference to the dictum

¶38

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 7 2025:KER:28114

¶39

laid down by this Court in W.P.(C)No.18827 of 2015 dated 01.08.2025.

¶40

With the afore observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P7 would also stand set aside.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE

¶43

ANA

¶44

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 8 2025:KER:28114

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17021/2023

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit-P1COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 22-8-2008
PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE
EDUCATIONAL AGENCY

¶48

Exhibit-P2COPY OF NOTICE NO.C2/2014/20 DATED 21-9-
2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P3COPY OF REPLY DATED 30-11-2021 BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit-P4COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE
DATED 27-3-2023 FILED U/S. 34 OF THE
REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
Exhibit-P5COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE
DATED 27-3-2023 FILED U/S. 7 OF THE
REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
Exhibit-P6COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29-3-
2023 BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P7COPY OF REPLY DATED 19-4-2023 BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit R4 (a)A true copy of the notice dated
25.08.2020 issued by the fourth
respondent to the petitioner
Exhibit R4 (b)A true copy of the assessment notice
dated 01.10.2020 issued by the fourth
respondent to the petitioner
Exhibit R4 (c)A true copy of the proceedings
order .No. C2/2014/20 dated 20.02.2021
of the Building Cess Assessing Officer
Exhibit R4 (d)A true copy of the show cause notice
dated 21.09.2021 issued by the fourth

¶51

W.P.(C)No.17021 of 2023 9 2025:KER:28114

¶52

respondent to the petitioner

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF REQUEST UNDER THE R.T.I.
ACT DATED 10-2-2025

¶55

Exhibit P9COPY OF REPLY DATED 22-2-2025 ISSUED BY
THE K.S.E.B. TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER, CENTURY EDUCATIONAL TRUST.

¶56

Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE CONSUMER PROFILE DATED
22-2-2025 ISSUED BY THE KSEB

¶57

Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE LAST BILL DATED 02-05-
2018 PAID BY PETITIONER TO SHOW THAT THE
CONSUMER NUMBER OF THE BUILDING IN
EXT.P1

Century International Institute of Dental Science & Research Centre, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Century International Institute of Dental Science & Research Centre, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikrishnan, Vs Kolazhy Grama Panchayat

M/S.Himavarsha Kuries Private Limited (in Liquidation) Vs Suresh.K.v

Sudheesh.S Vs State of Kerala

Sarvabhagya Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Vismaya Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Motomi Bharat K Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India