Kerala High Court
Adv.M.C.Presannakumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
ADV.M.C.PRESANNAKUMAR,
AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.KANNAN,LAKSHMI
NIVAS,P.O.PARAPRAM,PINARAYI VILLAGE,THALASSERY
TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
SMT.MINI.V.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670 003.
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT.
4 THE TAHSILDAR
THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT-670 701.
BY ADVS.
SRI. ARUN AJAY SHANKAR (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order of the 4th respondent through which he purported to exercise his power under Section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, in the matter of assessment of building tax and liability to luxury tax in respect of a residential building belonging to the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The 4th respondent completed assessment of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 in respect of the building of the petitioner by taking the total plinth area to be 284.86 square meters and directed the payment of Rs.4,800/- as building tax and Rs.4,000/- as luxury tax payable by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the determination in Ext.P1 by filing an appeal before the Sub Collector, Thalassery. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner thereupon filed a Revision Petition before the District Collector, Kannur and the District Collector, Kannur by Ext.P3 order disposed of the Revision Petition as under:-
WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017 3 "റിവിഷൻ ഹരജി പ്രകാരമുള്ള വാസ ഗൃഹത്തിന്റെ താഴത്തെ നിലയിലെ 15.98 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്റർ വിസ്തീർണ്ണമുള്ള വരാന്തയും ഒന്നാം നിലയിലെ 4.179 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്റർ വിസ്തീർണ്ണമുള്ള വരാന്തയും മൂന്നുവശങ്ങളും കൽഭിത്തികളോ മറ്റു മറകളോ ഇല്ലാത്ത തുറസ്സായ സ്ഥലത്തേക്ക് തുറന്നിരിക്കുന്ന വരാന്തകളുമാണ്. ആയതിനാൽ കേരള മുൻസിപ്പൽ കെട്ടിട നിർമ്മാണ ചട്ടം 1999 ഉപചട്ടം 8 (111) പ്രകാരം പ്രസ്തുത വരാന്തകളുടെ വിസ്തീർണത്തിന്റെ 50% വിസ്തീർണം മാത്രമേ കെട്ടിടനികുതി ചുമത്തുമ്പോൾ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തേണ്ടതുള്ളൂ.. ആയതിനാൽ 29-01-2016 ലെ ജൂനിയർ സൂപ്രണ്ടിന്റെ പുനഃ പരിശോധനാ റിപ്പോർട്ടിലെ ആകെ വിസ്തീർണ്ണമായ 280.651 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്ററിൽ നിന്നും കുറവു ചെയ്യേണ്ടതായ 10.079 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്റർ വിസ്തീർണ്ണം കുറവ് ചെയ്ത പ്രകാരം റിവിഷൻ ഹരജി പ്രകാരമുള്ള വാസ ഗൃഹത്തിന്റെ തറവിസ്തീർണ്ണം 270.571 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്റർ ആണെന്നും ഇത് ആഡംബരനികുതിയുടെ പരിധിയായ 278.7 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്ററിൽ നിന്നും കുറവാണെന്നും ആയതിനാൽ തന്നെ റിവിഷൻ ഹരജി പ്രകാരമുള്ള കെട്ടിടത്തെ ആഡംബര നികുതിയിൽ നിന്നും ഒഴിവാക്കി ഇതിനാൽ ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു .
കെട്ടിടത്തിന്റെ വിസ്തീർണ്ണം 270.571 ചതുരശ്ര മീറ്ററായി കണക്കാക്കി കെട്ടിടനികുതി ഉത്തരവ് തലശ്ശേരി തഹസിൽദാർ പുതുക്കി നിശ്ചയിക്കുന്നതിന് നടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കേണ്ടതാണ് ." Following Ext.P3 order, a consequential order was also issued by the 4th respondent. The said order is on record as Ext.P4. Thereafter by Ext.P5 order dated 17.07.2017, the 4 th respondent purporting to exercise the power under Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975 practically restored Ext.P1 order.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the findings of the District Collector in Ext.P3 WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017 4 order, the 4th respondent was not authorized to pass any further order under Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Roy M. Mathew v. State of Kerala [2005 (3) KLT 802]. It is also submitted that where the order of the 4 th respondent had been set at naught by the revisional authority, namely the District Collector, the 4th respondent could not have pass any further order practically refusing to implement the order of the District Collector. Reliance is placed in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal [AIR 1961 SUPREME COURT 182].
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P3 order of the District Collector proceeds on the basis that in terms of the provisions in the Municipality Building Rules, only 50% of the open area needs to be calculated for the purposes of plinth area. It is submitted that the application of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules for the purposes of determining the tax payable under the Building Tax Act, 1975 was obviously an error committed by the District Collector. He placed reliance on the judgment of WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017 5 this Court dated 14.11.2022 in W.P.(C)No.16730 of 2016 to contend that the determination of tax payable under the Building Tax Act, 1975 must be with reference to the provisions of that enactment not with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is submitted that Ext.P5 order of the 4 th respondent also refers to the proceedings of the District Collector, Kannur (reference No.6 in Ext.P5). He has placed before me a copy of the proceedings of the District Collector, referred to as reference No.6 in Ext.P5, to show that the District Collector himself had directed the 4th respondent to revise the orders, where benefit had been granted on the basis of the provisions contained in the Municipality Building Rules and it is on that basis that the 4th respondent had exercised his powers to rectify an obvious mistake (under Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975). It is submitted that in such circumstances, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not have any application.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. While it may be true that the WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017 6 Ext.P3 order of the District Collector allowing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner by referring to the provisions in the Municipality Building Rules for the purpose of determination of plinth area may not be legally correct especially in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.16730 of 2016, I am of the view that the procedure adopted by the 4th respondent for rectifying the mistake cannot be justified in law. While it may have been open to the District Collector himself to have exercised the power under Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975, it does not lie in the hands of the 4th respondent to exercise such powers to practically undo the order of the revisional authority, namely the District Collector. The law is settled by the judgment of this Court in Roy M. Mathew (supra), where this Court has clearly held that an error committed by the appellate or revisional authority cannot be corrected by the original authority by reference to the provisions of Section 15 of the Building Tax Act, 1975. Furthermore I am clear in my mind that if this procedure is permitted, it would amount to the inferior authority directly refusing to implement the order of the appellate / revisional authority which would directly militate against the principle WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017 7 laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. (supra). In Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. (supra), where it was held:-
"8. We think that the learned Judicial Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that no manifest injustice resulted from the order of the respondent conveyed in his letter dated March 24, 1955. By that order the respondent virtually refused to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal had given to him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him. Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of Courts. If a sub- ordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers, the result will be chaos in the administration of justice and we have indeed found it very difficult to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the learned Judicial Commissioner while roundly condemning the respondent for refusing to carry out the directions of the superior tribunal, yet held that no manifest injustice resulted from such refusal."
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is quashed. Since the time for exercising the power of WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017 8 rectification of mistake by the Revisional Authority has clearly expired no purpose will be served by reserving such right in the Revisional Authority, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK WP(C) NO. 27341 OF 2017 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27341/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.04.2017