IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27905 of 2007(V)
1. KIZHAKKATHPARAMBIL ABDUL AZEEZ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :25/08/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 27905 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 25th August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders
of the Government rejecting the petitioner’s application for exemption
from payment of building tax, on the ground that the petitioner’s
building is a workshop.
2. This Court had considered the matter on 19-9-2007 and
passed the following order:
“This is a case where petitioner by misrepresenting facts, got a
direction from this Court to refer the claim for exemption from
building tax in respect of a marriage hall for decision by
Government under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
The building in question is found by Tahsildar on inspection as a
pucca “Kalyana Mandapam” used for marriages and Tahsildar has
recorded in Ext. P3 that several marriages and functions are
conducted in the building which the petitioner is letting out on
collection of rent. Obviously the building is not eligible for any
exemption and the petitioner’s claim that it is a workshop is
absolute falsehood. If the petitioner wants to press the dispute on
the factual issue, petitioner should be willing to take out a
commission. Counsel for the petitioner prima facie did not agree
for appointment of a commission. Petitioner is therefore directed
to file an affidavit in this Court stating true facts, particularly with
reference to findings in Ext. P6 that building is a Kalyana
Mandapam. If the petitioner wants to deny this through an
affidavit, petitioner is free to do so, but if this Court based on
commission report or enquiry, finds that petitioner’s statement is
false, necessarily petitioner will have to face consequences for
filing false affidavit in court.
W.P will be considered after petitioner files affidavit as
above.”
The petitioner now submits that he is not pressing his contentions
now and in view of the financial crisis faced by the petitioner, the
petitioner may be permitted to pay the building tax demanded in
instalments.
2. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the
W.P.C. No. 27905/07 -: 2 :-
outstanding building tax amount with interest in 10 equal monthly
instalments starting from 7-9-2009. Every subsequent instalment
shall be paid on the first working day after 6th of every succeeding
month. If the petitioner pays the instalments in time without default,
coercive proceedings for recovery of the building tax shall be kept in
abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default of payment of
any one instalment, it would be open to the respondents to take
appropriate steps to recover the entire amount in a lump sum,
without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that
regard.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/