Shalih P.M vs The Assessing Authority And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18301 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

 TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943

                    WP(C) NO. 5391 OF 2019

PETITIONER:


          SHALIH P.M.,
          AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. P.V MEHABOOB,
          PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
          VAZHAKODE, MULLURKARA POST,
          THALAPPILLY TALUK,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          MANAGING PARTNER,
          STONA GRANITES WORLD,
          N.H BYE PASS ROAD, MARATHAKKARA,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT.




          BY ADV.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
          SMT.R.RAJITHA
          SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU
          SRI.R.N.SANDEEP



RESPONDENTS:


    1     THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND TAHSILDAR,
          THRISSUR 680 001.


    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SUB COLLECTOR,
          THRISSUR 680 001.
 W.P.(C) No.5391/19                 -:2:-




      3       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              THRISSUR 680 001.


      4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              MARATHAKKARA,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306


      5       SIMON,
              S/O. MANJAKY VARU,
              MARATHAKKARA,
              THRISSUR 680 306.


      6       SEEMA ANTOCHAN,
              W/O. MANJALY ANTOCHAN,
              CHEERACHI DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE,
              THRISSUR TALUK,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306.


      7       DEEPA TONY,
              W/O. MANJALY TONY,
              MARATHAKKARA DESOM AND VILLAGE,
              THRISSUR TALUK,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306.


      8       TESSY JOSEPH,
              W/O. MANJALY JOSEPH,
              KUTTANELLUR DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE,
              THRISSUR TALUK,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306.


              BY DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
              ADV.R.REJIT
 W.P.(C) No.5391/19         -:3:-


     THIS WRIT PETITION    (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021,   THE COURT ON THE SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5391/19                   -:4:-




                     BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                     -----------------------------------------
                         W.P.(C) No.5391 of 2019
                     -----------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 7th day of September, 2021

                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of assessment issued under

the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. As per Ext.P2 order, an amount of

Rs.3,09,600/- has been assessed as building tax payable for the

building allegedly constructed in Sy. No.37/96 and 67/111 of

Marathakkara Village. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a

tenant of the building and that no permanent constructions have

been made other than putting up a top cover to protect the customers

and the goods from the vagaries of weather.

2. Respondents 5 to 8 have filed counter affidavits stating that

they are the owners of the building, which is now subjected to an

order of assessment as Ext.P2 in the name of the tenant of the

building. Such an assessment is, according to them, contrary to law.

3. The statement filed by the 1st respondent refers to the

reasons for the assessment. However, the same does not contain

any mention regarding ownership of the building.

4. I have heard Adv.Santhosh P. Poduval on behalf of the

petitioner, Adv.Thushara James, learned Senior Government Pleader

on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and Adv.R.Rajit on behalf of

respondents 5 to 8.

5. Admittedly the petitioner is only a tenant of the building. The

ownership of the building is not in dispute as it admittedly belongs to

respondents 5 to 8. It is a mandate of law under the Kerala Building

Tax Act, 1975, that assessment has to be made in the name of the

owner. That being so, Ext.P2 cannot stand the test of law, since

assessment has been carried out in the name of the tenant of the

building. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 is liable to be set aside.

However, the statutory liability of every building being subjected to

building tax cannot be ignored, the assessing officer must be entitled

to issue fresh notice to the owners of the building, if a return as

contemplated under the Act has not been filed already, so as to

enable proper assessment of tax.

6. Accordingly, while setting aside Ext.P2 order of assessment

dated 26.08.2017, I reserve the liberty of the 1 st respondent to initiate

appropriate proceedings to assess the building in question and to

proceed in accordance with law, after issuing appropriate notice to

the owner of the building in question.

The writ petition is allowed as as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5391/2019

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED 19/5/2014 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6/4/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12/10/18 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RENT DEED DATED 14/3/2014 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16/1/19