T.T. JOY Vs. THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the proprietor of small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of washing powder and other cleaning products. The petitioner claimed an exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, in respect of the building put up by him for housing the Factory where the manufacturing activity was carried on. The assessing authority however, issued a notice proposing to assess the petitioner to building tax by denying the claim for exemption. When Ext.P5 assessment order and Ext.P6 demand notice was issued to the petitioner, he approached this Court through W.P.(C). No. 9950 of 2005, which was disposed by directing the Tahsildar to forward the petitioner's claim for exemption to the 2nd respondent for its decision. The demands made against the petitioner were also stayed pending the out come of the claim for exemption before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent thereafter went into the matter and by Ext.P10 order rejected the claim for exemption preferred by the petitioner. In Ext.P10 order, the stand of the Government is that the building put up by the petitioner does not satisfy the definition of factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 and hence would not qualify as a factory for the purposes of exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Ext.P10 order of the Government is impugned in the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) do not refer to factory as defined under the Factories Act and, therefore, it is the general meaning of the word factory that must prevail for the purposes of exemption. In the alternative, it is contended that the building could be categorised as a workshop for the purposes of exemption and the Government had to examine the matter from that angle as well. It is also pointed out that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948, the State Government is empowered to declare, by Notification in the official Gazette, that all or any of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, shall apply to any place wherein a manufacturing process is carried on with or without the aid of power or is so ordinarily carried on, notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein is less than what is contemplated under Section 2(m) of the Act or the persons working therein are not employed as the owner thereof but working with the permission of or under the agreement with such owner provided that the manufacturing process is not being carried on by the owner only with the aid of his family. The said provision also makes it clear that once a place is so declared, it shall be deemed to be a factory for the purposes of the Act and the owner shall be deemed to be the occupier and any person working therein a worker for the purposes of the said Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that even if the Government was of the view that a factory, for the purposes of exemption under the building tax, had to satisfy the definition of factory under the Factories Act then, it had to tak in even a deemed factory in terms of Section 85 of the Factories Act. The petitioner would place reliance on notification SRO 1679/93, issued by the State Government to indicate that units engaged in the manufacture of basic chemicals and chemical products have also been included under the schedule to the said Notification issued by the State Government.

(2.) I have heard Sri. K. Paul Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. K.T. Lilly, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.