Kerala High Court
Mpg Hotels And Infrastructure ... vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 23671 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MPG HOTELS AND INFRASTRUCTURE VENTURES PVT. LTD
FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.MUTHOOT HOTELS AND TOURISM VENTURES
PVT.LTD., MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695
034 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.KOLAZHI
VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN.
BY ADVS.
B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
NIMMY SHAJI
BINNET M.VAVACHAN
P.PRAMEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,LABOUR DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THOZHILBHAVAN, VIKASBHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER
DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 030.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- SRI K.M.FAISAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) 23671/2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has been issued with Ext.P1 assessment notice
dated 15.11.2018 in respect of a construction carried out by them
before March, 2006. According to the petitioner, construction of the
building was carried out through contractors and the liability to pay
Cess under the Building and other Construction Worker's Welfare Cess
Act, 1996 (Cess Act, for short) is on the contractors and not on the
petitioner. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed Ext.P2 reply to
Ext.P1 notice on 13.4.2019, before the second respondent. From the
endorsement made by the second respondent on Ext.P2, it can be seen
that the same was received in the office of the second respondent on
17.4.2019. In Ext.P2, it is contended that Ext.P1 is barred by
limitation and that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount
demanded in Ext.P1 and the liability to pay the amount, if any, due
under the Cess Act is on the contractors who have executed the work.
Other contentions are also raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2. Now, the
petitioner has been issued with Ext.P3 demand notice dated 28.9.2021
pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment notice. In Ext.P3, the petitioner is
directed to pay an amount of Rs.39,20,933/- as cess on or before
29.10.2021. According to the petitioner, the said notice is served on
him only on 27.10.2021. The petitioner submits that Ext.P3 has been
issued in total violation of the principles of natural justice and against
the provisions of the Cess Act. The petitioner also points out that in
Ext.P3, Ext.P2 reply is not adverted to.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader.
3. On going through Ext.P3 demand notice, it is seen that the
same has been issued without adverting to any of the contentions of
the petitioner in Ext.P2 reply. I find from the endorsement on Ext.P2
that the second respondent has received Ext.P2 reply in their office on
17.4.2019. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 demand notice. The second
respondent shall pass fresh orders after considering Ext.P2 reply
submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P1 assessment notice, after hearing
the petitioner. The second respondent shall pass a speaking order after
considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. The learned Government Pleader shall communicate
the gist of this judgment to the second respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23671/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED
15/11/2018.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF HE REPLY DATED 13/04/2019
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 28/09/2021.
spc/
