ALPHONSE LIGORY MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, a vacant plot of land belonging to them was let out to the third respondent and that the third respondent constructed a shed where he is conducting a workshop, where finishing works of the granite slabs are done. It is stated that the first respondent issued Ext.P3 notice, under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Thereupon, they filed Ext.P4 objection, where interalia, they contended that it being a workshop, the building is liable to be exempted under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Again Ext.P5 notice was issued and thereafter Exts.P6 and P7 orders were issued rejecting their claim for exemption from the levy of tax. This was followed by Exts.P8 and P9 orders of assessment. It is challenging these proceedings, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) CONTENTION raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the place in question is a workshop and therefore is liable to be exempted from the levy of tax under the Act in question. It is stated that when demand was made and they claimed exemption, the matter should have been referred to the Government for its decision and that without making such a reference, the second respondent passed orders rejecting their claim and also completing the assessment. This according to the petitioners, is illegal.

(3.) FIRST of all, the building permits obtained for constructing the structure in question have been produced by the learned Government Pleader before this Court. It is on the strength of these permits that the structure in question was constructed. These permits are obtained by none other than the petitioners and not the third respondent, the lessee.