Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Subhashini Sukumaran vs He Tahsildar on 25 April, 2006

C.P.Vincent vs Government Of Kerala on 4 November, 2009

8. As a necessary consequence of the above, Ext.P6 and P8 also will have to be quashed. It also needs to be clarified that Ext.P6 order of assessment shows that the remaining portion, including first and second floor, has been classified as "other building" as provided in the schedule to the Act and tax has been assessed on that basis. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the first and second floor of the building is used exclusively for residential purpose. If that be so, that part of the building which is used for residential purpose should be treated as a residential building and tax should be W.P.(C).37155/09 7 assessed on that basis alone. This position has been clarified by this Court in Sukumaran v. Tahsildar (1999 (2) KLT 373) and Jameela v. Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 979). Therefore, once the 1st respondent passes orders as directed above, it is for the 3rd respondent to pass fresh assessment order in respect of the remaining area of the building, after verifying the correctness of the claim made by the petitioner by conducting an inspection of the 1st and 2nd floor of the building in question.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document

M. Kamaludeen vs The District Collector on 12 June, 2009

3. The contents of the counter affidavit are not reflected in Ext.P5 reply given by the 1st respondent, while dealing with Ext.P4 petition preferred before him. Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent/appellate authority was left unattended to. The only reasoning given in Ext.P5 is that, the grievance of the petitioner could not be looked into, since the petitioner was not a party to the judgment, which was cited by him to have separate assessment. The reasoning given by the respondents in the counter affidavit as well as in Ext.P5 does not attract any consideration at all, in view of the law declared by this Court as per the decision in Sukumaran Vs. Tahsildar (1999(2) KLT 373) and the subsequent decisions on the point holding that, in the case of a building having 'commercial' as well as 'residential' portions, the same shall be assessed separately.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

B.Ramdas Shanbhogue vs The Tahsildar/Assessing Authority on 24 May, 2006

3. Petitioner then contended that the building is partly residential and partly commercial and, therefore, its assessment as "other buildings" is illegal. Schedule to the Kerala Building Tax Act provides W.P.(C) No.24454/2009 3 separate rates of building tax for residential buildings and other buildings. If a building is not completely a residential building, the building can be categorised only as an "other building". However, part of the building which is exclusively used for residential purpose can be assessed as residential building. It has been so held by this court in SUKUMARAN Vs. TAHSILDAR reported in 1999(2) KLT 373. In such circumstances, it is for the Assessing Authority to consider whether part of the building is used for residential purpose and if it is so, the assessment requires to be modified treating that part of the building which is used for residential purpose as a residential building and tax shall be assessed on that basis. Petitioner will produce a copy a of this judgment before the first respondent who shall inspect the building in question and on such inspection if it is found that any part of the building is used for residential purpose, the assessment will be suitably modified in the light of the observations made above.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1