IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 35413 of 2007(N)
1. M/S.SYNTHITE INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE
... Respondent
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.T.JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P. (C) No. 35413 OF 2007 N
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts. P7, P8 and P9
and to direct the 3rd respondent to pass fresh assessment order in
respect of the 83 returns filed assessing the 83 different apartments
separately under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
2. Petitioner submits that a plot of land originally belonged
to it and that it had obtained a building permit for the construction
of a multi storeyed apartment complex. Eventually a company
coming under the same group called Synthite Properties and
Investments (Pvt.) Ltd., constructed the apartment complex with 83
units of which 82 have been sold to outsiders whose names have
been given in this writ petition. It is submitted that one of the flats
is retained by the petitioner in its name.
3. Petitioner submits that proceedings were initiated by the
3rd respondent treating the petitioner as the owner of the whole
building for assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Although the petitioner produced documents to prove that though
WPC No.35413/07
-2-
the land originally belonged to it the undivided interest therein was
sold to 82 owners and that it was making use of the contributions of
those owners that the building was constructed, that did not find
favour with the 3rd respondent.
4. Finally Ext. P7 order was issued by the 3rd respondent
assessing the whole unit as one and levying building tax on the
petitioner. This was carried in appeal before the 2nd respondent
who rejected the appeal by Ext. P8 and the revisional authority also
turned down the revision by Ext. P9. Petitioner submits that they
have remitted two instalments of the tax assessed.
5. The main contention that is raised is relying on the
judgment of this Court in Bavasons Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
State of Kerala {2007 (3) KLT 101} where this Court had occasion to
deal with identical contentions raised by a builder and relief was
granted setting aside the order of assessment and directing re-
consideration by the assessing officer. In that case, the assessing
officer was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry with opportunity to
the builder to adduce evidence.
6. On facts, I am satisfied that this case is similar to the
one considered by this Court in the judgment referred to above and
WPC No.35413/07
-3-
the petitioner is also entitled to similar reliefs. Accordingly, I quash
Exts. P7, P8 and P9 and direct that the 3rd respondent shall conduct
a fresh enquiry into the liability of the petitioner for building tax. It
will be open to the petitioner to adduce evidence to show that the
undivided interest has been sold to 82 other owners of the
apartments and that it is making use of the contribution made by
those individual apartment owners the building in question has
been constructed. It will also be open to the petitioner to make use
of the evidence of the individual apartment owners.
7. The enquiry as directed above shall be completed by the
3rd respondent with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The question of refund or otherwise of the remittance
made by the petitioner will depend upon the orders to be passed by
the 3rd respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-