Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Thonikkadavath Shoukathali vs The Tahsildar on 10 February, 2009

Rajeev vs Nil on 10 November, 2011

3.Section 20 of the Act provides the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 21 provides the penalty for abetment of any offence punishable under the Act. Taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act stands governed by sections 24 and 25. Statutory provisions authorizing various actions in terms of the provisions of the Act, either by the revenue authorities or by the criminal courts, have been dealt with, quite elaborately, in different decisions; Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala[2007 (4) KLT 473], Moosakoya v. State of Kerala[2008 (1) KLT 538], Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 1068], Shoukathali v. Tahsildar [2009 (1) KLT 640] and few others as well. Examining them, we do not find any conflict among those precedents on any issue relating to Sections 20, 21, 22, 24 or 25 of the Act. WPC34939/11 & con.cases
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

M/S. Jyothi Manufacturing Industry vs State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2013

7. As regards the second contention of the petitioner with regard to the rate of tax that has to be applied, I find that the contention of the petitioner is fortified by the decision of this Court in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar [2000 (2) KLT 512], wherein it has been held that an assessment under the Building Tax Act should be based on the rate applicable on the date of competition of the building. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the construction of the petitioner's building has been completed by 2012, since the claim for exemption itself was raised before the 1st respondent on that basis. Going by the decision referred to above therefore, the assessment in relation to the petitioner's building -5- W.P.(C). No. 17660 of 2015 ought to be completed by adopting the rate of tax applicable as in 2012. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P6 order of assessment, to the extent it adopts the rate of tax applicable to the year 2015 as the basis of computation of tax, cannot be legally sustained. I accordingly, quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 3rd respondent assessing authority to complete the assessment in relation to the building owned by the petitioner, by applying the rate of tax applicable in the year 2012 to the plinth area determined in Ext.P6 order. The 3rd respondent shall pass fresh orders of assessment on the above basis, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. While issuing demand notices consequent to the assessment order passed by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall give credit to the amounts already paid by the petitioner towards tax, during the pendency of the writ petition.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010

8. Main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that there is violation of Rule 27 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002. He also relied on the judgments of this Court in Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77] and Shoukathali Vs. Tahsildar [2009 (1) KLT 640]. It was contended that only when Exts.P10 to P12 applications were made, the petitioners were issued copies of the mahazars, which ought to have been served on them at the time of seizure itself. Counsel contended that the fact that there is no acceptable specific method to differentiate between river sand W.P.(C) No.13757/10 & connected cases : 4 : and ordinary sand has been accepted in Ext.P15. According to him, if the respondents had a case that what was transported was not ordinary sand as contended by them, it is up to them to establish that fact.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document

V.J.George vs The Tahsildar on 21 May, 2009

3. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that as disclosed by Ext.P2, the plinth area of first floor is 161.16 M2 and the second floor is 161.16 M2. The materials available are not sufficient to come into a conclusion as to which tariff is applicable for making the assessment. This Court, in a decision reported in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar [2000(2) KLT 512], has held that the assessment should be based on the rate as fixed on the date of completion of the building. From the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, the rate has to be fixed at the time of completion of the construction of the building and the question as to on the date of completion, whether the Thrissur Municipality had been changed into Corporation or not, is to be considered for the purpose of fixing the rate. It is also relevant to note that now a written petition has already been filed by the petitioner before the respondent and the same is pending. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the respondent for re-consideration and for taking a fresh decision, considering the date on which the construction of the building was completed and the rate to be made applicable after considering the status of the local body at the time of completion of the construction. The petitioner is free O.P. NO.19077 of 2001 :-3-:
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V K Mohanan - Full Document

Sameer M.K vs The District Collector on 29 September, 2009

The writ petitioners in these cases are owners/operators of goods carriages. Their vehicles were seized either by the police officials or the revenue officials, on the allegation that they were found transporting river sand illegally. The seizure has been reported to the District Collector concerned. The respective District Collectors are taking steps to confiscate the vehicles. Challenging those steps and also praying to release the vehicles pending finalisation of the confiscation proceedings, these Writ Petitions have been filed. A learned Single Judge of this Court noticing the apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KLT 1068 and Shoukathali v. Tahsildar, 2009 (1) KLT 640, has referred certain cases, in W.P.(C) Nos.25979/09 etc.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaji vs The State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2009

Lorry No.KL-5/5227 was seized by the police in crime No.640/2008 of Sasthamcotta police station registered for the offences under Sections 379, 188 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 20 and 21 of Kerala River Bank Protection and Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Petitioner filed C.M.P.4365/2009 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle. Under Annexure-A3 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that in view of the decision of this court in Shoukathali v. Tahsildar (2009 (1) KLT 640) petitioner has to approach District Collector for interim custody of the vehicle. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A3 order and for interim custody of the vehicle contending that when the offences alleged include offence under Indian Penal Code and when the vehicle was produced before the Magistrate, learned Magistrate is competent CRMC 2549/09 2 to grant interim custody under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissal of the application is illegal.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Nambiar - Full Document

Abdul Salam vs The District Collector on 18 February, 2010

2. The main ground taken in the writ petition is that the 1st respondent passed Exhibit P1 order without hearing the petitioner, and by fixing the value of the vehicle as Rs.75,000/-, a direction has been given to deposit the amount or to face prosecution. It is pointed out that this order is bad in law W.P.(C) No.24409/2009 2 especially in the light of the decisions of this Court in Subramanian vs. State of Kerala (2009(1)KLT 77), Sareesh vs. District Collector (2009(2) KLT 906) and Shoukathali vs. Tahsildar (2009(1) KLT 640).
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T R Nair - Full Document
1