Kerala High Court
Jayakrishnan V.G vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2016
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 36808 of 2015 (A)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
JAYAKRISHNAN V.G, DIRECTOR,
INSTITUTE FOR CARRIER DEVELOPMENT (ICD),
KOLLAM ADUTHALA (P.O), NADAKKAL,
KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT VALIYAZHIKOM, KANJAVELI P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT ,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE P.O, KOLLAM.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
KOLLAM TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUVATHUKAL VILLAGE,
KALLUVATHUKAL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
6. KALLUVATHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KALLUVATHUKAL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
7. THE TAHSILDAR(RR),
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR(RR)KOLLAM.
R1 TO R5 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 36808 of 2015 (A)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-------------------------------------
P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DTD 13/7/2015
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A9-53625/2012 DTD 7/2/2012 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO A9-53625/12 DTD 20/6/2013 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO A9-53625/14 DTD 24/5/2014 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 29/9/2015 ISSUED BY THE
7TH RESPONDENT U/S 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD 29/9/2015 ISSUED BY
THE 7TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 15/11/2015 FILED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE.
P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 24/11/2015 FILED BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 1/12/2015 FILED BEFORE THE
IST RESPONDENT.
P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 1/12/2015 FILED BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
.............................................................
W.P.(C).No.36808 of 2015
.............................................................
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who was conducting a coaching centre in the name and style of Institute of Carrier Development (ICD), for students pursuing competitive examination banks, is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in extending the benefit of an exemption under Section 3 of the Kerala Building Tax Act to the building put up by the petitioner where the coaching centre was carried on. The facts in the writ petition would reveal that, against an order of assessment that was passed in the year 07.02.2012, the petitioner had not pursued the matter further through an appeal. Much thereafter, he approached the Government with a representation dated 15.11.2015 claiming exemption in respect of the building, on the ground that, the building was actually used for educational purposes, and therefore, qualified for exemption under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The said representations, however, were not acted upon by the respondents and the petitioner was eventually served with -2- W.P.(C). No. 36808 of 2015 Exts.P5 and P6 demand notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amount confirmed against him by Ext.P2 assessment order. In the writ petition, the specific case of the petitioner is that, inasmuch as there is no period stipulated under the Building Tax Act for claiming exemption, it was not open to the respondents to disregard the representation preferred by the petitioner for exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, while it cannot be disputed that, at any stage during the process of assessment, including the stage of appeal before the appellate authorities, it would be open to an assessee claiming exemption from tax under the Building Tax Act to raise a claim for examination by the State Government, the facts in the instant case would indicate that by Ext.P2 order of assessment, the liability of the petitioner to tax had already been determined. Admittedly there was no appeal preferred against Ext.P2 order by the petitioner. The claim for exemption is raised almost three years -3- W.P.(C). No. 36808 of 2015 later and the issue arises as to whether there was any obligation on the part of the respondent State government to consider the claim for exemption. I am of the view that, inasmuch as a consideration for application of exemption would require an examination of the factual situation that prevailed on the date on which the taxable event arose, namely, the date of completion of construction of the building, and the immediate user to which the building was put, the said facts cannot be verified by the State Government at this distance of time especially when the assessment itself has not been challenged before the appellate or revisional authority. Under such circumstances therefore, it would be futile for the petitioner to contend that the State Government is obliged to consider his claim for exemption in terms of the Building Tax Act. I see no reason to interfere with Exts.P5 and P6 demand notices that are impugned in the writ petition since I find that, the petitioner's claim for exemption cannot be considered by the respondent State Government at this distance of time. The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/06.01.16 -4- W.P.(C). No. 36808 of 2015