Kerala High Court
Sandhya Rajan vs The State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2024
2024:KER:63235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024/10TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18827 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
SANDHYA RAJAN,
AGED 44 YEARS,
D/O.LATE. ADV.T.R.RAJAPPAN,
RESIDING AT "SREE" WARRIAM ROAD,
KOCHI - 682 016.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LABOUR AND SKILLS DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER,
ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,
KOCHI - 30.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T K VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.C.No.18827 of 2015
2024:KER:63235
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2024
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts.P6
and P7 notices issued by the 2nd respondent under the
provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers
Welfare Cess Act, 1996 for the amount alleged due towards the
contribution towards the Construction Workers' Welfare Cess
under the abovesaid Act.
2. The petitioner along with her mother renovated
their 'Tharavadu' property during the year 2007. The building
tax assessment bill produced as Ext.P1 shows that the
construction was completed in 2007. However, the petitioner
received Ext.P6 notice on 05.03.2015 and Ext.P7 notice on
23.05.2015 wherein, the petitioner was required to pay the
amount allegedly due towards the Construction Workers'
Welfare Cess under the provisions of the Building and Other
Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. These notices are
challenged primarily on the ground that the same are barred by
limitation.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd
2024:KER:63235
respondent in which it is submitted that since the petitioner
had not filed a return as contemplated under Section 4 of the
Act, the assessment officer under the Act is enabled to proceed
with the assessment. Once such assessments have been made,
the respondents, are entitled to recovers it under the provisions
of the Act.
4. I have heard Sri.Manu Govind, the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner. T.K.Vipindas, the learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
admittedly, the notices issued by the respondents are barred by
limitation. According to the learned counsel, in terms of
provisions contained under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, a
period of three years, will have to be necessarily fixed for
recovery. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Full Bench of this Court in Raveendran Nair M.G. v. State of
Kerala and Others [2014 (4) KHC 518] and a judgment
rendered in WP(C) No. 30017/2018, dated 01.04.2024.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would point out that the period of
limitation is not three years as contended by the learned counsel
2024:KER:63235
for the petitioner. In fact, the amount due to the statutory body
could also be recovered as an arrear of land revenue deemed to
be due to the Government. If the amount so due is construed as
the amount due to the Government, then the period of limitation
would be 30 years and not three years, as contended by the
petitioner.
7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across
the Bar.
8. The point of law as canvassed by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of this
Court in Raveendran Nair.M.G (supra) has already held that
the limitation for the amount due to the Boards established
under the various statutes cannot be governed by the provisions
of Article 112 of the Limitation Act. It was further held by the
Full Bench that merely because of a notification under Section
71 of the Revenue Recovery Act by which the applicability of the
Act to other institutions was made, a larger period of limitation
cannot be given. The principles laid down by the Full Bench was
adopted by this Court in Ajmal.T.M v. Deputy Tahsildar [2024
(3) KHC 131].
2024:KER:63235
9. Following the principles carved out in the aforesaid
judgment, necessarily it has to be found that no demand can be
raised at this point of time. Though no period of limitation is
prescribed for passing the assessment order, the same ought to
be within reasonable time. Any recovery assessed by
respondents towards the cess amount is clearly barred by
limitation. Hence, it is declared that no recovery measures
pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7 can be initiated against petitioner.
Writ Petition ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ADS
2024:KER:63235
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18827/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX ASSESSMENT
BILL DATED 05/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE CITY
CORPORATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2007-2008.
EXHIBITS P2 A TRUE COPY OF RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE DATED
31/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE CITY CORPORATION.
EXHIBITS P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LUXURY TAX ASSESSMENT
PROCEEDING NOTICE NO.B3 10820/07 DATED
31/10/2007,FROM THE TAHSILDAR,KANAYANNUR
TALUK,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBITS P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED
31/10/2007 FOR THE PAYMENT OF LUXURY TAX.
EXHIBITS P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER
THE KERALA BUILDING TAX DATED 31/10/2007.
EXHIBITS P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/03/2015
DEMANDING THE PETITIONER TO FURNISH DETAILS
OF THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBITS P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE
DATED 23/05/2015.
