SURESH BABU Vs. ASSESSMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to have purchased a property with a building thereon. He purchased the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner was issued with Ext. P4 notice by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay Rs.42,522/- as cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996, on the construction costs of Rs.42,52,190/- for the building. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 demand for cess under the said Act on the ground that the same is payable only by the original owner, who constructed the building and that the petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, is not liable to pay cess under the Act.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader submits that liability is on the owner, which would include the present owner as well. He points out that for the purpose of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996, the words and expressions used in that Act but not defined but defined in the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the parent Act) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act. In the parent Act, the expression 'employer' who is liable to pay cess is defined to mean the owner of an establishment and includes others described therein also. Therefore, whoever is the owner of the building as on the date of demand is liable to pay the cess. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, since the petitioner answers the definition of 'employer' for the purpose of Act, the petitioner is liable to pay the cess as demanded in Ext. P4.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.