Kerala High Court
Abad Builders Private Limited vs Tahsildar on 4 June, 2025
2025:KER:39392
WPC.No.13486/18 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13486 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
ABAD BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
8TH FLOOR, ABAD NUCLEUS MALL & OFFICE,NH-49,
MARADU P.O, KOCH-682304, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR, DR.NAJEEB ZACHARIAH.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH
SMT.V.NAMITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
UNION CLUB ROAD, PUTHENANGADY,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 001.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 637.
SHRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39392
WPC.No.13486/18 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of real-estate development by carrying out construction of multi- storied buildings in various parts of the State. As part of its business, the petitioner constructed a multi-storied building by name Royal Garden, comprising of 96 residential apartments in the property in Survey Nos.179/5, 171/9-2 and 171/15-3 of Peroor Village, Kottayam District.
2. The petitioner was earlier served with a notice by the 1st respondent on 26.10.2015 requiring the petitioner to produce documents for the purpose of carrying out assessment of the building under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. As the building was not completed as on that time, Ext.P1 communication was issued to the effect that all the said documents will be produced as soon as the building is completed. Later, as per Ext.P2, Ettumanoor Municipality issued an occupancy certificate on 27.06.2016. Thereafter, Ext.P3 communication was issued by the petitioner to the 1 st respondent intimating that the petitioner had obtained 2025:KER:39392 WPC.No.13486/18 3 occupancy certificate from the Ettumanoor Municipality. It was also reported that the apartment complex consists of 96 flats are owned by different persons and the cost of construction of the apartment was jointly met by all the said owners. According to the petitioner necessary documents were also produced along with the said communication. However, according to the petitioner, subsequently Ext.P10 order of assessment was passed by the 1st respondent without any reference to the documents or the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the sharing of expenses by 96 apartment owners. Ext.P11 is the notice of demand issued pursuant to Ext.P10. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P10.
3. I have heard Sri.Srinath Girish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention of this Court to various documents including Ext.P16 series, which indicate the details of expenses shared by the various apartment owners. It is the 2025:KER:39392 WPC.No.13486/18 4 specific case of the petitioner that the entire expenses were shared, but the same was not considered by the 2 nd respondent while making the assessment, by treating the entire building as a single unit. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the apartment complex was constructed utilizing the funds of separate apartment owners, evidently such appartments have to be separately assessed, as it falls under Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. However, as it is seen that, Ext.P10 assessment order does not contain any consideration of the said aspect, but instead, it is an assessment order issued in a printed form, I am of the view that the same requires re-consideration. This is particularly because, the question regarding the expense sharing is necessarily a matter to be considered by the 1 st respondent before finalizing the assessment.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P10 and P11 with a direction to the 1 st respondent to assess the building of the petitioner afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner. It shall be open for the petitioner to produce all the documents to substantiate the contention that 2025:KER:39392 WPC.No.13486/18 5 the construction was carried out by sharing the entire expenses by the apartment owners. Such fresh assessment shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit records and hearing.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/9.6.25 2025:KER:39392 WPC.No.13486/18 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13486/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY DATED 27.06.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED THROUGH THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 03.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OWNERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL APARTMENTS.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER FROM-II.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.01.2018.EW EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN FORM V DATED 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IN FORM VI DATED 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF APARTMENTS AND OWNERS.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.03.2018.