K.V.R. CARS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext. P10 order of the 1st respondent rejecting a claim for exemption preferred by the petitioner under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The facts stated in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner had put up a building in his property, situated in Re-survey No. 42/8 of Chirakkal Village, in connection with his authorised dealership in Maruthi cars. The building permit and plan produced by the petitioner indicates that the plinth area of the building is 1577.84M2 and the building is spread over two floors with the ground floor having a plinth area of 1310.52M2 and the first floor 267.32 M2. The floor plan of the building shows that there is a portion ear-marked for service and another portion ear-marked for body shop in the ground floor of the building. There are no details forthcoming, however, as to which portion of the building conforms to the description of workshop, in respect of which the petitioner was claiming exemption. The assessing authority initially passed Ext. P9 assessment order, assessing that portion of the building which was admittedly not being used as a workshop, to tax by applying the rates applicable to commercial spaces. Thereafter, by Ext. P10 order, the Government rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption by finding that even the disputed area of the building was not being solely used as a workshop. Reliance was also placed on the report from the Taluk Officer, Kannur, who pointed out that exhibition for sales and service of vehicles was being held in the building and that the said facts had been confirmed by the Village Officer who conducted a site inspection. Consequent to the rejection of the claim for exemption, Ext. P11 assessment order was passed by the Tahsildar assessing the building in its entirety to tax and demanding the differential tax of Rs. 1,87,200/- from the petitioner. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner against the said assessment order did not bear any fruit since they were dismissed by the appellate and revisional authorities by Exts. P13 and P14 orders, stating that the Government had already rejected the claim for exemption by the petitioner. It is under the said circumstances that the petitioner has impugned Ext. P10 Government Order before this Court in the writ petition.

(2.) Through a statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the findings of the 1st respondent in Ext. P10 order are sought to be justified on the contention that there was no material produced by the petitioner to suggest that a substantial part of the building in question was used as a workshop for the purposes of sustaining the claim for exemption. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Sakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala 2016 (1) KLT 434.

(3.) A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner refuting the averments in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents.